1

CHAPTER ONE

Introduction to the study

1.1 Purpose of the current study

The purpose of the current investigation was to identify factors within the environment

of a child care centre that contribute to the immediate manifestation of unwanted child

behaviours. Specifically, answers were sought to the following questions:

a) How, and to what extent, do physical, social, structural, and cultural

components of the environment contribute to manifestations of unwanted child

behaviours?

b) Can any aspect of the physical, social, structural or cultural components of the

environment, which have been identified as contributing to manifestations of

unwanted child behaviours, be modified to reduce its influence?

The basic approach adopted for the investigation was to observe different children in the

natural, or cultural (Fuhrer, 1990) setting of a single child care centre. Akin to a strategy

advocated by Stokols (1987), the aim of the observations was to identify unwanted child

behaviours then define the set of situational or contextual variables in which they

occurred. Comprehensively observing a relatively small number of contrasting cases,

similar to the procedure recommended for theory development by Wicker (1987), was

to provide sufficient data to establish shared patterns of outcomes from child:environment

relationships, or what Stake (1995) referred to as “correspondences” (p. 78).

1.2 Research and children in child care centres

Child care centres provide attending children with a range of physical, social, structural

and cultural experiences that are unique among different forms of out-of-home care and

educational facilities. For example, few of the physical or structural situations encountered

in centres are likely to be found in the smaller and more intimate family day care settings.

Although sharing some physical and social similarities with preschools, the longer hours of

operation make centre-based care structurally and culturally different, and often

experienced by children from a younger age.

2

Age of enrolment has the potential to be an important variable in research on children in

early childhood settings. Attending a child care centre may provide the young child with

his or her first extended out-of-home experiences. Attendance may also signal the child’s

first exposure to unaccustomed social factors, such as interacting with a range of same-

age peers, in both individual and groups encounters. The child has to cope with an

unfamiliar culture comprising the authority of adults who are not family members. At the

same time, he or she has to abide by rules that have often been designed for the group

care and educational management of 40 or more children in one setting at one time

(Egeland, Kalkoske, Gottesman, & Erickson, 1990; Proshansky & Fabian, 1987).

Furthermore, these social and cultural factors are contained within a structure that

imposes daily schedules and routines, and dictates both the size and composition of the

child’s group. In addition, these factors are experienced by the child at a time when his or

her cognitive, social and emotional development is undergoing transformation from

egocentrism to a state that is only just beginning to recognise the roles and rights of

others. Adapting to the combination of these newly experienced social, cultural, and

structural factors within the physical confines of a child care centre, for up to 10 hours

each day, five days per week, undoubtedly has the potential to impact on child behaviours

(e.g., Del’Homme, Sinclair, & Kasari, 1994; Fox & Field, 1989; Manne, 1996).

On the other hand, because children may be enrolled from just a few months of age, many

experience extended hours of attendance each week continuously over four years or

more. The National Childcare Accreditation Council (1993) noted that “a child can spend

up to 12,500 hours in childcare before starting school: that’s only 500 hours less than the

child will spend in lessons during the whole 13 years of schooling” (Foreword). For some

of these children, early separation from at-home care, early development of group social

skills, and boredom or understimulation engendered by familiarity with the centre’s

routines and activities have been claimed to have consequences for displays of problem

behaviours (e.g., Clarke & Gray, 1997; Gruss, Jackson, Grimson, & Hedgcock, 1998;

Loane, 1996; Schuster, Murrell, & Cook, 1980).

At the same time, the identification of a particular type of behaviour as being a

consequence of the influence of any time or place also appears to have presented some

difficulties for researchers. For example, Harris and Drummond (1977) described early

childhood as comprising “...tumultuous periods of personality development” (p. 51) and

conceded the difficulty of differentiating between typical and atypical child behaviours.

Other investigators have emphasised the transient nature of many behaviours, resulting

from normal processes of development in very young children (Campbell, 1995; Chazan,

3

Laing, Jones, Harper, & Bolton, 1983; Hagekull & Bohlin, 1992). The problems of tumult

and transience in relation to research has been acknowledged by Egeland et al. (1990):

Problem behaviors in preschool pose a particularly difficult research task. This is a period of major and swift developmental changes. Many of the problems evident in preschoolers, such as tantrums, defiance, inattentiveness, and aggression, are to some extent normative and simply reflect developmental changes and pressures. (p. 892)

In acknowledging these difficulties, the current work did not attempt to differentiate

between problems that may have been symptomatic of atypical child development and

those that may have reflected behaviours of relatively typical children between the ages of

3-5 years. The main objective of the data collection strategy was to record, with sufficient

detail of settings and situations, all instances where child behaviours were judged to be

problematic. The main objective of the analysis and interpretation of the data was to

identify sufficient links between environmental factors and children’s problem behaviours

to establish correspondences and provide answers to the research questions. Reductions

in the number of problem behaviours in child care centres would have immediate benefits

for staff and long term benefits for children.

1.2.1 Consequences of child behaviour problems in child care centres

The occurrence of child behaviour problems in a group setting has already been identified

as a major source of concern and stress for early childhood staff (Dinwiddie, 1994; Merrett

& Taylor, 1994), absorbing their time and energy, and disrupting programs (Corrie, 1994;

Miller, 1996). In addition, failure to control the development of problem behaviours has

also been seen to have consequences detrimental to other children attending the child

care centre as well as the child exhibiting the behaviour problems. These consequences

have been identified in relation to the creation of negative tone, undesirable behaviour

models, the creation of behavioural expectations for some children, and the possibility of

establishing antecedents for long-term problems. Implications for children and staff of

child care centres are illustrated in the following four points.

1.2.1.1 Negative tone

The manifestation of child behaviour problems in the classroom has been seen as capable

of introducing a negative tone or mood into the group (Gruss et al., 1998). Tone has been

used to describe the emotional component of interactions between adults and children

(Campbell, Breaux, Ewing, Szumowski, & Pierce, 1986; Magnusson, 1981a; Watkins &

Durant, 1992), and impacts on staff attitudes towards children (Hedin, Ekholm, &

Andersson, 1997).

4

1.2.1.2 Undesirable behaviour models

Problem behaviours exhibited by one child may provide an undesirable behaviour model

for other children or elicit retaliation that may contribute to a further increase in disruptions.

For example, it has been contended that aggressive children are quickly recognised by

peers and often treated in a way that is likely to promote continuing aggressive

interchanges (Turner, 1991). Such treatment may lead to long-term disruptions as it has

been observed that peers may not respond immediately but increasingly victimise the

aggressor over a period of time (Olson, 1992).

1.2.1.3 Creating behavioural expectation

Stephen (1993) contended that it is very easy for staff to assume that children who are

frequently involved in conflicts are always at fault, although observations have shown that

“...other children quickly learn that it is worth taunting the ‘naughty child’ because that child

tends to ‘get the blame’ from adults” (p. 13). Nevertheless, expectations for child

misbehaviour can lead teachers to develop a “disorderly conduct set” aimed at arresting

the offending behaviour as quickly and quietly as possible, even though this may foster

injustices at times (Stebbins, 1971). In the long-term, expectations and injustices may add

to the problems of the targeted child, possibility contributing to the perpetuation of his or

her problems beyond early childhood.

1.2.1.4 Long-term consequences

On a broader front, concern has long been expressed about a perceived high level of anti-

social acts, and other types of unwanted behaviours, in Western society (Bay-Hinitz,

Peterson, & Quilitch, 1994; Fergusson, Horwood, & Lynskey, 1994a; Willems, 1977), and

observations over more than 20 years that these levels were rising (Bandura, 1973; Coie

& Jacobs, 1993). For more than a decade, a growing amount of research has indicated

that adolescent and adult conduct disorders can be traced back to early childhood

behaviour problems as a common antecedent, (e.g., Campbell, 1994; Egeland et al.,

1990; Fischer, Rolf, Hasazi, & Cummings, 1984; Halperin et al., 1995; Koot & Verhulst,

1992; Schmitz, Fulker, & Mrazek, 1995; Waldman, 1996; Weatherburn & Lind, 1998).

Therefore, children at risk of developing conduct disorders in later life could only benefit

from a reduction of any factors contributing to antecedent early childhood behaviour

problems.

1.2.2 Reducing occurrences of behaviour problems by managing the child

One approach to reducing problems has been to implement child behaviour management

strategies, frequently based on the adult reinforcing positive behaviours and ignoring those

5

considered negative, providing they do not create dangerous situations (e.g., Jordan,

1997; Pavuluri & Smith, 1996). Although the approach acknowledges that the child may

be responding actively and voluntarily to achieve specific goals, such as seeking adult

attention, it ignores the child’s relationship to environmental factors, or how he or she

might be stimulated to exhibit problem behaviours. Rather, child management

concentrates on conditioning the child to respond appropriately to the general situation.

Investigators have observed, however, that staff often reinforce unwanted behaviours by

giving the offending child the attention he or she desires (Coie & Jacobs, 1993; Edwards &

Cuff, 1996; Gruss et al., 1998; McGuire & Richman, 1986). In these cases, the child

effectively conditions the adults.

It has also been noted that attention given to children who exhibit problem behaviours

frequently diminishes the amount of attention given to other children and therefore

undervalues those who usually behave appropriately (Watkins & Durant, 1992). The

effect may be amplified by the use of reward tokens that, in turn, act as incentives for

misbehaviour by children who are not usually problematic. As Wittmer and Honig (1994)

related, “a kindergarten child went home from his school one day and told his

grandmother, I’ve got it figured out now. First you have to be bad, and then good, and

then you get a sticker” (p. 6).

1.2.3 Reducing behaviour problems by modifying the environment

A long held alternative approach has been to identify environmental influences that may

contribute to the manifestation of specific behaviours (e.g., Gump, Schoggen, & Redl,

1963; Hartup, 1983; Isaacs, 1933). For example, 45 years ago, Body (1955) investigated

aggression in nursery schools and concluded as follows:

This study points to the need for more careful analysis of the situational factors in behavior. Group composition, intragroup constellations, child-child contacts, direction methods, and school program must be studied and described in conjunction with responses in order to further understanding of child behavior in the nursery school. (p. 10)

Over the past 20 years, such study has been advocated as preliminary to modifying

environmental factors with the aim of reducing their influence and thereby curtailing

occurrences of problem behaviours in early childhood settings (e.g., Rodd, 1996;

Walling, 1977).

Support for approaches to minimise negative influences of the environment is

evidenced by requirements for appropriate space, equipment, programming, and

adult:child interactions inherent in government regulations for child care centres (e.g.,

6

NSW Government, 1996), national accreditation procedures (National Childcare

Accreditation Council, 1993), and the Australian code of ethics for early childhood staff

(Ashby, 1991; Rodd & Clyde, 1991; Stonehouse & Creaser, 1991).

1.3 Need for the current study

Despite the wide recognition of the importance of environmental influence on behaviour

by early childhood professionals and governments, research into the immediate effects

of total child care centre environments on children’s problem behaviour is comparatively

meagre. Beyond often confounded and sometimes contradictory findings concerned with

group composition, amounts of equipment and specific types of play, the total environment

of a child care centre has not been investigated in any systematic way. The majority of

studies have observed only selected child behaviours, in a limited number of settings

that take place within a small part of a normal child care centre’s day. Examples of

these studies, and investigations using a variety of other approaches, are reviewed in

Chapter Two. In summary, however, the results have generally provided findings that

are limited in their utility because of the behavioural, temporal and spatial boundaries

imposed by their methodologies.

Given the evidence of potentially damaging consequences of child behaviour problems for

all participants, and the possible relationship between child behaviour and environmental

factors, it is important to methodically study the relationship between occurrences of

problematic child behaviours and the totality of the environment within a child care centre.

Identification of environmental factors that contribute to manifestations of unwanted child

behaviours would add to theoretical knowledge in this area as well as having practical

implications for children, staff and other professionals associated with the provision of

early childhood services.

1.4 A conceptual framework for the current study

Another consequence of the lack of any systematic approach to date is the absence of a

guide to the most appropriate method of investigating phenomena emanating from

child:environment relationships in a child care centre. As a prelude to the current

investigation, therefore, two salient methodological issues were addressed. First, was

the three-part task of conceptualising (a) the totality of environmental factors in a child

care centre; (b) problematic early childhood behaviours; and (c) the relationship

between the two as experienced by enrolled children aged between 3-5 years. Second,

within the conceptual framework of behaviour, environment, and relationships, was the

formulation of a data collection strategy and process of data analysis. The main aim of

7

the strategy and process was to ensure that environmental influences on child

behaviour could be identified, interpreted, and correspondences validated by

establishing the existence of patterns of child:environment relationships across multiple

settings and situations involving different children.

The details of these concepts follow, preceded by Bandura’s (1973) warning that

“attempts to define a concept essentially represent an invitation for a stroll through a

semantic jungle...” (p. 2).

1.5 Conceptualising the environment of child care centres

Consistent with the lack of studies that have investigated the relationships between child

behaviours and child care centre environments, is a lack of conceptualisation of the

environments of child care centres. Reviewing the literature on general environments

reveals considerable variations in both the uses of concepts and descriptions of basic

terms. Therefore, the conceptualisation of the environment for the current study started

with definitions of salient features. To achieve some relativity to existing uses and

descriptions of concepts and terms, a survey of the literature was undertaken. The

findings were as follows.

1.5.1 The use of terms and concepts

Problems occasioned by the failure of researchers to provide specific environmental

information, or to define the meaning of terms used to describe conditions, have been

raised by a number of investigators. In their journal article reviewing evidence for the

effect of out-of-home care on child development, for example, Richters and Zahn-Waxler

(1988) expressed concern for the interpretation of research findings and specific variables

without sufficient contextual data. Four years later, Hennessy, Martin, Moss, and Melhuish

(1992), in their book detailing a wider ranging review of the impact of child care on

children, acknowledged the earlier implications of the deficiencies for findings in noting that

“…every piece of research, and every day care service researched, is situated in a specific

context” (p. 2). Ladd, Price, and Hart (1990), also cautioned about problems associated

with the omission of contextual data in their book chapter on preschool children’s peer

relations; and the Del’Homme et al. (1994), article on preschool children’s behaviour

problems, warned that failure to provide contextual information could compromise the

generalisability of results because the “...context in which behaviors are observed may

affect the utility of the data” (p. 221).

The views of the authors referred to above indicate that to validate the findings of any

8

investigation of child behaviour problems there is a need to clearly specify the context of

those behaviours. A survey of the literature demonstrates, however, that the term

“context” is often used interchangeably with the terms “environment”, “milieu”, “setting”,

and “situation”, which creates difficulties both for interpreting findings and for comparing

different studies. As a starting point to establish definitions for the current investigation,

the differences and similarities in definitions used in the literature are considered in order

to identify any points of consensus.

1.5.1.1 Context and environment

Over some period, the term “context” appears to have been accorded shared attributes,

with the term “environment”. As examples, Barker (1968) considered that the “...outside

context constitutes the molar ecological environment” (p. 6), while Endler (1981) claimed

that “the environment is the general and persistent background or context within which

behavior occurs” (p. 364). On the other hand, Overton and Reese (1977) depicted context

as a product of environment, while Clitheroe Jr, Stokols, and Zmuidzinas (1998) used

context “...to refer to a specific set of personal, physical and social aspects of

environments, behavior settings and/or situations selected for consideration by the

researcher or designer, and the relationships between them” (p. 105).

In addition to the context being defined as “the same as”, “a background to”, “a product of”,

and “selected bits from” the environment, it has also been described as “the particular

circumstances which, at any given time surround a person...” (English & English, 1958, p.

118). On the other hand, in a statement not dissimilar, but in reverse to Barker’s (1968)

interpretation cited above, Stratton and Hayes (1988), defined environment as “the total

external context...” (p. 61).

1.5.1.2 Environment and milieu

English and English (1958), stated that “milieu is properly the organism and its immediate

environment, but is often used for the latter alone” (p. 182). It has also been referred to as

“...an intricate complex of times, places, and things” (Barker, 1968, p. 19), while Willems

(1977) equated milieu with environment and with place. Within a “contextual perspective”,

Stokols (1987) also specified a “...spatial, temporal, and sociocultural milieu” (p. 42). Moos

and Insel (1974) delineated a “psychosocial milieu”, while Milgrom (1994), talked about a

“psychosocial context”. Others have used terms to describe milieu in the same way as

environment, such as “the physical milieu” (Moore, 1987; Stokols, 1981) and “physical

environment” (Choice, 1994; Ekholm, Hedin, & Andersson, 1995; Endler, 1981;

Greenough, Black, & Wallace, 1987) or “social milieu” (Bandura, 1992; Wright, Barker,

9

Nall, & Schoggen, 1951) and “social environment” (Dawson, Hessl, & Frey, 1994;

Goldsmith et al., 1987; Ramsey, 1995; Sherman & Oppenheimer, 1989). More recently,

the term “environment” has been used to refer to “...the larger milieu which envelopes

human behavior” (Clitheroe Jr et al., 1998, p. 105).

1.5.1.3 Environment and settings

Behaviour and milieu have also been cited as major components of “behavior settings” or

just “settings” (Barker, 1968; Wright, 1967). However, the “general setting” has also been

nominated as the meaning of context, and equivalent to environment (Stratton & Hayes,

1988). On the other hand, the environment has been defined as more than a physical

setting, as it includes “the sum of the external conditions and factors potentially capable of

influencing an organism” (English & English, 1958, p. 182).

In providing a very specific characteristic, Stokols (1987) defined settings as “...geographic

locations in which various personal or interpersonal situations recur on a regular basis” (p.

51). This interpretation raises two immediate issues: first, how the boundaries of the

location are to be determined; and, second, ascertaining what degree of frequency and

rhythmicity qualify for the label “regular”. It also raises the question of temporal limits.

1.5.1.4 Situations

Following on from the definition of setting, Stokols (1987) defined situations as

“...sequences of individual or group activities that occur at a particular time and place” (p.

51). Prior to this, the situation had been similarly described “...in terms of who is there,

what is going on, and where it is taking place” (Pervin, 1981, p. 347). The person:situation

relationship had been raised earlier (e.g., Endler, 1981; Fredericksen, 1972), with Stern

(1964) contending that a description of the situation must take into account the

expectancies which are aroused in the person. This was in contrast to others of that time

who saw the situation in terms of objectively measured characteristics (e.g., Barker,

1963b; Sells, 1963). More behaviour specific than expectancies and activity, Magnusson

(1981b) contended that situations gave meaning to behaviour, in that “...behavior takes

place in situations; it does not exist except in relation to certain situational conditions and

cannot be understood and explained in isolation from them” (p. 10).

Although the assigned function or characteristics of the situation have changed since the

1950s and early 1960s, the defining difference in meaning and/or function with the other

terms is still far from clear. Endler (1981) drew a temporal distinction in that while he

defined environment as a general background or context of behaviour, he saw the

10

situation as “...the momentary or transient background” (p. 364). The concept of an

“immediate situation” had also been raised around this time (e.g., Bronfenbrenner, 1977;

Nystedt, 1981), which Endler (1981) equated with the “momentary situation”.

The final point raised here is consideration of the situation as fluid, always changing as a

consequence of alterations in time or temperature or some other accompanying aspect, so

that the same situation is never quite the same situation (Rotter, 1981).

1.5.1.5 Conclusions about the use of terms and concepts in the literature

The terms environment, setting, situation, context, and milieu, appear regularly in the

literature, and have been supplemented with specific temporal characteristic which

make them immediate or momentary. However, the time-space attributes of each term

have been used inconsistently across studies and appear to be used interchangeably

on occasions. As a consequence, providing definitions for the current study based on

previous applications of the terms requires a degree of arbitrary decision-making in

relation to the physical, geographic, and temporal characteristics of each. While this is

acknowledged as a potential limitation on any future cross-study comparison of findings,

the following specification of the meaning and function of terms used in the current study

will clarify the interpretation of data collected as part of the current investigation.

1.5.2 Definitions for the current study

All five commonly used terms have been assigned specific functions relative to each other

and persons.

1.5.2.1 A definition of environment

Environment is defined as

the totality of the milieux, settings, situations, and contexts, incorporating

physical, social, cultural, structural, and temporal, aspects of all components

within a general location of time and space. Location can be remote or in close

proximity to a specific setting or person.

1.5.2.2 A definition of milieu

A milieu is defined in accord with English and English (1958) as

the totality of the person and his or her immediate environment, in any given

situation, over any period of time. It comprises all aspects of the

person:environment relationship as perceived by the individual concerned and,

therefore, cannot be interpreted objectively by an observer.

11

1.5.2.3 A definition of settings

Drawing from Stokols (1981), settings are

locations characterised by specific physical and temporal boundaries within the

environment. They are, more often than not, associated with a narrow range of

expected behaviours designated as “standing behaviours” by Barker (1968), and

may be referred to as “behaviour settings” (Kounin & Sherman, 1979; Sherman &

Oppenheimer, 1989).

In the current study, the child care centre is a setting. Smaller settings can be embedded

within the larger setting, each with variations in expected behaviour. These may exist

naturally or be deliberately created for a particular purpose, such as may be seen with

multiple activity centres within a single classroom. Settings, or behaviour settings,

comprise physical and structural factors and can exist without persons being present, but

when persons are present, they comprise any number of situations.

1.5.2.4 A definition of context

For the current study, context is defined in some agreement with Clitheroe Jr et al. (1998),

and represents

the “why” of the situation or setting. It is the subjective interpretation of a

participating individual, using selected “bits” of information about the situation or

setting, incorporating his or her milieu, and is stated as the reason for being of the

situation at a given time, as perceived by a participant. Similar to milieu, context

is a perception of the individual and, therefore, cannot be interpreted objectively

by an observer.

1.5.2.5 A definition of situations

A situation is defined in Pervin’s (1981) terms as

the “who”, “what”, and “where”, of person:setting interactions. A situation is

created by the person’s contextual definition of the setting. As other persons or

the temporal aspects of the setting’s structure change environmental factors

within the setting, so the person’s definition of the context of that setting changes.

In accord with Rotter (1981), therefore, situations are seen as fluid; ever

changing, never quite the same from moment-to-moment, but they cannot exist

without persons.

1.5.3 Embedded factors

In addition to the five main terms defined above, a further two embedded factors useful in

12

facilitating analysis, have been adopted. These are “behaviour units” or “episodes” and

“momentary situations”. Emanating from studies during the 1950s and 1960s (Barker,

1963a; Barker, 1968; Wright, 1967; Wright et al., 1951), both concepts were conceived as

parts of behaviour streams, as described by Barker (1963b) and are utilised in the current

study to aid interpretation of the data.

1.5.3.1 Behaviour units or episodes

Whether occupying a setting on their own, or with others, the activities of individuals can

be analysed as a constant stream of behaviours. This stream is made up of behavioural

units or episodes, each representing an action with an identifiable starting and finishing

point located in time and space (Barker, 1963b), which can be represented schematically,

as in Figure 1.1. In this example, one of the observed children, identified as preschooler

female number 3 (PF03), arrives at the easel to paint, but before starting was involved in

four behaviour units, three with staff member number one (S01), as follows.

Figure 1.1 Behaviour stream for PF03 preparing to paint

The example in Figure 1.1 provides an uncomplicated section of the behaviour stream, but

as Barker (1968) warned, “...behavior episodes do not move along Indian file, but, rather,

one, two, or three abreast quite irregularly” (p. 148). Analysis of the behaviour stream is

discussed more fully in Chapter Three (3.5), with an extension of the above sample to

demonstrate the tracking capacity of the technique across complex actions.

13

Analysis of behaviour units in streams of behaviour has been criticised as a method, being

seen as “...unwieldy for comparing many different subjects and milieus” (Bell, 1965, p. 2).

Barker (1963b) had earlier warned of the “...tedious and difficult task of identifying,

describing, and classifying behavior units” (p. 7), but observed that it was an essential part

of the research technique. More recently, Rolfe and Crossley (1997) have noted specific

advantages of an ability to track events antecedent to problem behaviours and to identify

critical components in the activity:

When behaviours occur infrequently, they may be missed unless there is continuous close scrutiny of the behaviour stream. Subsequent interventions can then be based on sound understanding of which aspects of behaviour are exaggerated, missing or otherwise inappropriate and in which contexts they occur. (p. 10)

Barker (1963b) advised, however, that analysis can achieve meaningful results only by

considering the whole behaviour stream, since “...the isolation of a single behavior unit,

kind of unit, or unit attribute from the whole pattern can, in effect, distort the reality of

behavior as surely as direct interference with the behavior stream” (p. 19).

1.5.3.2 Momentary situations

Momentary situations are segments of situations; the smallest possible temporal units.

They represent the exact time-space location of critical actions in the behaviour unit at any

embedded level. For example, PF03 calling out to S01 in Figure 1.1.

1.5.4 The physical relationship between setting components

In summary, the relationships between the concepts within the totality of the environment

can be stated as follows. The physical setting may be populated by persons who interact

with each other or with objects to create situations. Observed behaviours of participants in

situations can be interpreted in sequential streams comprising separate units or episodes,

each having a location with a starting and finishing point in time and space. Although

dependent on the detail provided by the data collection process, these events can be

dissected to reveal precise moments of specific actions within the situation. The

relationship between settings, situations, behaviour units, and momentary situations is

illustrated in Figure 1.2 over the page.

1.5.5 Describing environmental characteristics

In addition to problems created by confusing application of terms to describe time-space

locations, researchers have often limited the utilities of studies by predetermining the

14

meaning or purpose of situations, settings, environments. The most commonly used

method has been to precede the term with an adjective indicating a particular physical,

socio-emotional, or organisational characteristic. The general descriptors imply that

situations, settings, and environments are deterministic, which creates difficulties for the

analysis of processes of behaviour development (Wohlwill & Heft, 1987). The

interpretation of adjectives is also subject to a wide range of value judgements, with the

potential to distort understanding of the circumstances in which the data is collected, as

demonstrated by the examples following Figure 1.2.

Figure 1.2 The physical relationship between setting components

1.5.5.1 Descriptions of the environment

Adjectives preceding the term environment encompass a range of socio-emotional and

physical conditions or circumstances. Without evidence to the contrary, these descriptions

appear to reflect the investigators’ response to person:environment relationships rather

than an objective accounting of observed activity. For example, “family” (Bradley &

Caldwell, 1984; Braungart-Rieker, Rende, Plomin, DeFries, & Fulker, 1995) or “home”

(Egeland et al., 1990; Gordon, Arthur, & Butterfield, 1996). Similarly, references are often

made to environments that belong to a narrower classification of physio-socio-cultural

structures, such as “day care” (Dunn, 1993; Hennessy et al., 1992), “preschool”

(Bay-Hinitz et al., 1994; Carta, Greenwood, & Atwater, 1986) or “school” (Berk, 1971;

Edelbrock, Rende, Plomin, & Thompson, 1995), “classroom” (Biddulph, 1997; Fisher,

Fraser, & Bassett, 1995), or “laboratory” (Campbell, Breaux, Ewing, Szumowski, & Pierce,

15

1986).

Investigators have also used a range of descriptors to assign primary functions or specific

psychosocial properties to environments, devoid of any real physical attributes. These

include “learning environments” (Erickson & Mohatt, 1982), or ones described as

“language” (McCartney, Scarr, Phillips, Grajek, & Schwarz, 1982) or “work” environments

(Hayden, 1996; Kirmeyer, 1985), which can be “undermanned” (Bechtel, 1974). Sensory

components, such as “auditory” and “visual” have also been suggested (Haugen, 1997).

In addition are environments defined as “structured” (Farmer, 1988), “developmentally

appropriate” (Dinwiddie, 1994), “unpredictable” (Cicchetti, Ackerman, & Izard, 1995),

“caring” (Choice, 1994), “well-organised” (Koralek, Colker, & Dodge, 1993), and even

“aggressive” environment (Horne, 1981), as a partner to aggressive context.

1.5.5.2 Descriptions of settings

Berk (1971) attributed settings with some form of structural or functional influence, similar

to those accorded the environment, by siting activity in a “nursery school” setting.

Similarly, others have sited behaviour in “cultural” settings (Bronfenbrenner, 1979),

“home-like” and “institutional” settings (Greenman, 1988), and an “unsupervised” setting

(Altepeter & Breen, 1992). Settings have also been accorded size (Bechtel, 1974) and

social value, such as “disadvantaged school” settings, which Kazdin (1993) equated with

contextual conditions. Such descriptors emphasise the general characteristics of a setting

rather than identifying the specific physical and temporal boundaries of the events. They

also appear to assume a general influence expected of the setting, rather then describing

any effects on the behaviour of participants.

1.5.5.3 Descriptions of situations

The same one-word attempt to focus the reader’s attention on a particular set of

assumptions has been applied to situations, often using the same or similar meaning

words. For example, situations have been labeled “cooperative/competitive” (La Freniere

& Charlesworth, 1987), “undesirable” (Levine, 1995), “provocative” (Crick, 1995),

“conflictual” (Camras, 1977; Clarke & Gray, 1997), and even “explosive” (Chazan et al.,

1983; Strauss, Schatzman, Bucher, Ehrlich, & Sabshin, 1969). Less violent, but just as

value-laden, are those described as “neutral” (Derryberry & Reed, 1994), or “ambiguous”

(Courtney & Cohen, 1996).

Alternatively, situations have been geographically or conceptually designated as “out of

school” (Lichtenstein & Ireton, 1984), “nonlaboratory” (Lewis, Sullivan, & Vasen, 1987),

“classroom” (Stebbins, 1971), “school” and “home” (Altepeter & Breen, 1989). There are

16

many more descriptors providing, what Stränger and Hommel (1995) called the

“situational context”. While indicating a general type of site, they provide very little

information about the specific implications for person:environment relationships upon

which to base interpretation of data.

1.5.5.4 The limitations of describing environments

Beyond generally indicating categories of places, activities, and perceptions of mood,

these descriptors provide little information about what the researchers or their subjects

may actually be experiencing at the time the particular study was undertaken. As a result,

the extent of agreement between the writers of reports and their readers, about the

assumed properties and consequent impact of the locations, activities and circumstances

under which the investigations was pursued, is dependent upon the degree and type of

real and vicarious experiences of the reader. If that experience is of a different time in

history, or of a country and culture different to that of the author, difficulties of

interpretations may be exacerbated.

1.5.6 Describing properties of the environment in the current study

In view of the above, the current study does not utilise adjectives to provide a general

description of the environment, settings, or situations. Rather, specific properties of the

environment are provided under four designated component parts of the environment,

generally described as physical, social, structural and cultural factors. Descriptions of

factors within these four component parts are provided below.

1.5.6.1 Component parts of the environment

Debate about the component parts of environment has tended to concentrate on the, now

generally accepted, inseparable relationship of the physical and social factors (e.g.,

Moore, 1986; Moos & Insel, 1974; Proshansky & Fabian, 1987), to the exclusion of any

other elements. In some studies, a cultural factor has been identified as a separate

component (e.g., Greenman, 1988; Harkness & Super, 1985; Kritchevsky, Prescott, &

Walling, 1969; Wener, 1989), although sometimes combined as a socio-cultural

constituent (e.g., Elliott, 1995; Hinde, 1992; Lerner, 1983; Magnusson, 1981a; Stokols,

1987). For the purposes of the current study, however, a separate cultural component of

the environment has been adopted. The particular approach of the current study also

required the adoption of a framework to describe temporally ordered factors. To meet this

requirement, a structural component of the environment of a child care centre was added

to the other three. A description of the constituent parts of each component is provided

below.

17

1.5.6.2 The physical component of the environment

The physical component of a child care centre’s environment includes buildings, fences,

materials, equipment, and activity area layout both indoor and outdoor, as well as trees

and other natural features. In short, all that can be experienced through the sense of

touch. Within a child care centre, however, physical factors are usually planned and made

available to both staff and children in conjunction with both structural and cultural factors.

1.5.6.3 The social component of the environment

The social component of the current work is seen as comprising child:object and

child:child relationships, including intentions and outcomes, with occasional reference to

parent:child interactions. The nature of staff:child relationships is seen as primarily

supporting the function of the child care centre, with the purpose of most interactions and

transactions being firmly based in structural or cultural factors.

1.5.6.4 The structural component of the environment

Structural factors relate to time and organisation. They include the scheduling of

activity/behaviour settings throughout the day, determining the duration of each and their

sequence, including children’s transitions between settings. The structure also

incorporates the number, age, and gender mixes of children as a result of the grouping

practices, together with the allocation of staff numbers to the groups at various times

throughout the day. Structural factors are usually closely aligned to the cultural values or

aims of the centre and specify the temporal aspects of settings.

1.5.6.5 The cultural component of the environment

In general, culture has been defined as “...the general sense of systems of standards for

perceiving, believing, evaluating, and acting” (Goodenough, 1971, p. 41). According to

some investigators, these standards are learned and shared consensual behaviours of the

group (Georgiou, Carspecken, & Willems, 1996; Hall, 1959; Stebbins, 1971), and in a child

care centre many of the staff:child transactions are dedicated to teaching and maintaining

these behaviours.

The culture dictates or guides all adult relationships with children, including the formulation

of rules and the strategies used by staff to implement them, together with a system of

rewards and punishments. The culture also prescribes the philosophical approach to early

childhood care and education, including choices about program content, the application of

which is frequently reflected in the settings, and adult expectations for child outcomes.

18

1.5.6.6 Summary of component parts of the environment

To facilitate discussion of the conceptual approach to the current study, and to provide

a framework for analysis and interpretation of the data, the environment was separated

into four component parts. Although interrelated and often interdependent, physical,

social, structural, and cultural factors separately account for different facets of

child:environment relationships across all settings and situations. Although they

represent the basic components of environmental influence, issues of magnitude of

effect and wider temporal dimensions also need to be addressed before considering the

mechanism underlying child:environment relationships.

1.5.7 Magnitude of environmental influence

To further clarify the role of the environment, consideration is given to theories concerning

the magnitude of environmental influence. For instance, some reports have sited the

environment geographically: as “indoor” (Wohlwill & Heft, 1987), “outdoor” (Hart &

Sheehan, 1986) and “external” (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). Apart from indicating the

presence or absence of roofing, the descriptions could be implying an influence due to

weather or temperature, or expectations about dress, activities, or a host of unmentioned

other things. Some investigators have been more spatial, referring to an environment that

is “surrounding” (Clitheroe Jr et al., 1998), “ambient” (Johnson, 1988), or “immediate”

(English & English, 1958; Hennessy et al., 1992). Such descriptors imply movement,

although not exclusively, perhaps gravitating towards the individual, concentrating strength

of influence as proximity to the person increases. The descriptors may also imply that the

environment is not amorphous, but multi-layered with functions or spheres of influence

separated by elements of time and space.

Following the spatial theme, some theorists have specified a structure of different levels;

for example, Brim’s (1975), suggestion of micro-, meso-, and macro-structural levels of

environmental influence on child development. The micro-structural level included

influences closest to the child, such as his or her family, while the meso-structure included

relationships at the neighbourhood level, including child care centres. In relation to the

macro-structural level, which appeared to concern him the most, he declared that

professionals “...must look at economics, cultural values, politics, law, and sociology in

relation to child development” (Brim, 1975, p. 517).

Adapting Brim’s terminology (Bronfenbrenner, 1977), and envisaging interactions between

the layers, Bronfenbrenner (1979) proposed a four-level system in relation to child

19

development and introduced the concept of an interconnected micro-, meso-, exo-, and

macro-system. In the most immediate proximity to the person was placed the micro-

system, comprising a “...given face-to-face setting with particular physical and material

features and containing other persons with distinctive characteristics of temperament,

personality, and systems of belief” (Bronfenbrenner, 1992, p. 227). Magnusson and Allen

(1983) also defined a micro-level of the environment, and saw it as “...that part of the total

physical and social environment that an individual is in contact with and can interact with

directly in daily life during a certain period of time (in the family, at school, at work, during

leisure time, etc.)” (p. 11).

In a practical application of the model, Minuchin and Shapiro (1983) related micro-systems

to frequented behaviour settings, describing schools as “...a series of behaviour settings in

which the student participates directly” (p. 202). The influence of the connection between

two or more of these settings, or micro-systems, was nominated as the meso-system

(Bronfenbrenner, 1977). The exo-system described events in which the person did not

participate but which still had an impact on him or her. For a child attending a child care

centre the exo-system includes the parents’ work place which dictates family schedules

(Milligan, 1994). Particularly relevant to the current study is the parents’ workplace or

other time/space commitments that, through the meso-system, determine the child’s

arrival and departure times, days or attendance, and stability of these arrangements.

On the outer reaches of the sphere of influence, Bronfenbrenner (1992) depicted the

macro-system as comprising

...micro-, meso-, and exosystems characteristic of a given culture, subculture, or other broader social context, with particular reference to the developmentally-instigative belief systems, resources, hazards, life styles, opportunity structures, life course options, and patterns of social interchange that are embedded in each of these systems. The macrosystem may be thought of as a societal blueprint for a particular culture, subculture, or other broader social context. (p. 228)

The concept of a relationship between different levels of the environment was also

supported by Magnusson and Allen (1983), who saw the macro-level as “...that part of the

total environment that in some way or other influences and determines the character and

functioning of the micro-environment” (p. 11).

1.5.7.1 Space and time

Although indicating connections between levels, the models do not include any special

chronological or chronometrical relationships between person and environment. The

20

necessity of incorporating time in explanations for changes in behaviour has increasingly

come to the fore, resulting in the separation of the concepts of space and time from

physical factors within the environment (Altman & Rogoff, 1987; Bronfenbrenner, 1992;

Clitheroe Jr et al., 1998; Hinde, 1992).

1.5.7.2 Impact of time on the person and behaviour

A chronological factor allows consideration of a person’s intentions for actions and/or

reactions. Additionally, attempting to understand the meaning of person:environment

relationships in the present may require incorporating the outcomes of transactions from

the past. The importance of this latter point may be found in the observation that

behaviour

...in any situation reflects the type of person we are, and this, in turn, involves our parental upbringing, the socio-economic class to which we belong, the values of our society, our religious and ethnic background, the influence of significant figures on our lives, accidents of fate, our short- and long-range goals, the education we have achieved, the norms of the society in which we live, and so on. All these factors, in the very broad sense, are part of our environment. They constitute the world we know. (Ittleson, Proshansky, Rivlin, & Winkel, 1974, p. 168)

Apart from individual differences in types of experience, for the very young child many of

these issues may be subject to incomplete learning, inexperience, or immature cognitive

processes, which renders the outcomes of their relationship with an environment quite

different to those of an adult in a similar situation. This point may have significant

implications for child behaviour and is discussed further in Chapter Two. In the meantime,

the current study incorporates the concept of a multi-layered environment, as proposed by

Bronfenbrenner (1992), in conjunction with the superimposition of elements accounting for

time in person:environment relationships.

1.5.8 Models of influence

Although many of the previously cited studies implicate the environment as an influence

on child development or the creation of problem behaviours, few offer any specifications

about the process of creation. Nor do they explain why, in the same situation, some

children exhibit problem behaviours while others do not. In very general terms,

approaches to explaining the relationship between persons and environment encompass

three matters: first, the nature of the interface between the child and the setting; second,

the directionality of influence; and third, the mechanism underlying any change in persons

and environments resulting from relationships. The following is a summary of the most

salient points relevant to children’s relationships with the environment in a child care

centre.

21

1.5.8.1 The nature of the interface between the child and the setting

The question of how environments impact on people has concerned investigators for

more than 60 years. Koffka (1935) made a distinction between the physical and

psychological, which he called the geographic and behavioural, contending that the

psychological was a function of the interaction between the person and the physical

environment. Lewin (1935) made the connection at the same time and by linking an

individual's psychological interpretation of the situation with his or her perception of the

physical environment went one stage further by coupling this perception to behaviour.

Lewin's (1935) formalisation of the relationship of behaviour (B) as a function (f) of the

interaction between person (P) and the environment (E), expressed as B=f(PE),

established a clear connection between the person and environment. He contended that

certain facets of the environment, particularly objects, attracted attention and elicited

specific behaviours from children. Lewin (1935) is also credited with inventing the term

“Life space” (Block & Block, 1981; Rapoport, 1977) as a means of describing the

personal attributes an individual brings with him or her to interpret the meaning of a

setting or situation.

A broad view of these personal attributes suggested that motivation, discrimination,

performance, and affectivity were all required to execute behaviour in response to

environment influences (Muenzinger, 1942). Wright et al. (1951) extended this mainly

unidirectional model by suggesting that

...what the person does in a behavior setting, the classroom or any other, depends at any one time upon the meaning of its parts to him; it depends upon his own goals…needs....It depends, in all, upon the forces in quite another zone of influence....the naturally occurring life space, the relevant context of everyday behavior, which we have called the psychological habitat of the person. (p. 190)

According to Snodgrass and Russell (1988), a person's response to even a simple

stimulus depends on the person's mood and plans, which are often formed in whole or

in part before encountering the stimulus. More recently, Stein (1996) has suggested that

the meaning of settings and situations have value only at the moment of appearance, as

a result of their particular histories and how the person chooses to examine them. Fuhrer

(1990) focussed on the individual’s level of control and intentions by emphasising “…the

active and voluntary, goal-directed efforts of people to cope with their behavior settings”

(Fuhrer, 1990, p. 532). Together with later work by Clitheroe Jr et al. (1998), there has

been a broadening of recognition that individuals bring to a situation a range of inherited

and learned behaviours, which are accompanied by motives and goals for the outcome

22

of their involvement in the setting. In a child care centre, a child views a situation in his

or her own context and the behaviour displayed is likely to reflect the experiences and

intentions he or she has. Consequently, a behaviour setting can be seen as “…not just

one bunch of objects; it is many bunches of objects at the same time, because it is a

different bunch for each inhabitant” (Fuhrer, 1990, p. 533). Apart from intentions, the

environment may also be perceived as exerting influences on or being influenced by

different children, as depicted by the following overview.

1.5.8.2 Directionality of relationship between persons and environments

Various models assign dominant, submissive, or equilateral roles to person and

environments, giving rise to three states:

The first is the relation in which man is understood to be reducible to the environment; second, the relationship in which the environment is reducible to man; and third, the relation in which two independent systems - man and environment - reciprocally interact. Each of these relations derive from basic and often unstated philosophical assumptions which have exerted and continue to exert a determining contextual influence.... (Overton & Reese, 1977, p. 13)

1.5.8.3 The person reducible to the environment

Similar to the first of the three views above is that which posits behaviour as setting-

dependent (e.g., Barker, 1968; Gruss et al., 1998; Hinde, 1987), or as a function of the

environment (e.g., Overton & Reese, 1977; Sebastian, 1988). Belief in the power of the

environment to shape or dictate behaviours underpins much of the current thinking about

the effects on child behaviour of family socio-economic and other demographic factors. As

such, it forms much of the basis of the “nurture” case in the nature versus nurture debate

(e.g., Braungart-Rieker et al., 1995; Gruss et al., 1998; Lytton, 1990b; Miller, 1995;

Wahler, 1990).

Apart from naturally occurring conditions, it has been asserted that settings can be

manipulated instrumentally by others to achieve behavioural goals (Proshansky & Fabian,

1987; Stokols, 1990). In the general community, it has been recognised that much social

control is dependent upon the environment guiding or directing behaviour, whether in

schools, public transport, libraries, or the like (Bradley & Caldwell, 1995; Parsons, 1974;

Sameroff & Fiese, 1990; Willems, 1974). As a consequence, the perception of child

behaviour as a problem has been defined, in many cases, as simply those behaviours

being exhibited at the wrong time in the wrong place (Greenman, 1988). It reflects the

view expressed by Magnusson (1981b), cited earlier, that behaviour can only exist and be

understood in relation to certain conditions.

23

1.5.8.4 The environment reducible to the person

Other models of behaviour, such as “self-action” (Dewey & Bentley, 1949), “formism”

(Pepper, 1961), and early “trait” theories, as described by Altman & Rogoff (1987), have

excluded the environment as an influence, seeing behaviour as a product only of the

person, similar to the second of the three states of Overton and Reese (1977) cited above.

Theories postulating no relationship between person and environment underpin much of

the argument for the “nature” side of the nature versus nurture debate.

Stokols (1987) provides an account of a variation, termed the minimalist approach, which

accords the environment some, albeit a minimal influence. Goldsmith et al., (1987)

similarly provide examples of the view that the behaviour of persons are relatively

unaffected by settings and situations, but not totally immune.

1.5.9 Mechanism of change resulting from person:environment relationships

Both the minimalist and person-reducible-to-environment models are essentially

unidirectional and the relationship between the person and environment provides little

reciprocity of influence. Generally, under the minimalist regime, perception dictates

learning, while under the opposing view learning results from conditioning.

Equilateral or reciprocity models of person-environment relations, on the other hand,

emphasise a bi-directional influence, although the mechanism for this relationship has

been further partitioned into at least four paradigms; interactional, organismic, contextual,

and transactional.

1.5.9.1 Interactional model

An interactional model accepts that there are bi-directional relationships between an

individual and his or her environment. Behaviour is seen to result from the influence of the

person and environment upon each other, but the characteristic of an interaction is that it

leaves both the person and the environment relatively unchanged. That is, interactions

represent functional exchanges, they do not indicate modification of the environment or

learning that profoundly alters the ongoing behaviours of the person.

1.5.9.2 Organismic model

The organismic view proposes that the relationship between an individual and his or her

environment is complex and reciprocal, leading to changes in both. The relationship is

seen as being governed by a limited set of laws or principles that try to maintain or move

24

the participants towards ideal states according to the sum of their individual properties.

The implied developmental function has been seen as primarily involving the emotional

system of the person in motivating behaviour to meet particular goals (Cicchetti et al.,

1995). Although far from an ideal state, the organismic model appears to play some role

in coercive parent:child relationships.

1.5.9.3 Contextual model

A forerunner to the transactional model, the contextual model depicts the world as being in

a state of continuous change as a result of the relationship between person and

environment. Contextualism contrasts with the transactional approach in the belief that

“...the person interacts with the situation, and the resultant behavior alters the person’s

perception of his or her own characteristics and of the next situation in a kind of

self-perpetuation of change” (Sarason & Sarason, 1983, p. 188). It implies that the person

is growing as a whole, affecting all future relationships to some degree, which may have

some application in the previously mentioned ‘turmoil’ of early childhood development.

1.5.9.4 Transactional model

A transactional model also accepts that there are relationships but not of mutual influences

or resulting from antecedent-consequent processes. Transactions take the form of unique

configurations of culture, setting and person, involving different aspects of the individual

and environment to form a whole, so that they coexist and “...jointly define one another

and contribute to the meaning and nature of a holistic event” (Altman & Rogoff, 1987, p.

24). However, the model suggests that resulting changes to the person may not be

carried over to other configurations, which may also have application to early child

development. In particular, the irregularity in extending environmental influence to all

areas of development compliments theory that development is not regular across all

domains (e.g., Biggs & Collis, 1991; Collis & Biggs, 1991; Hutt, 1972).

1.5.9.5 Summary and conclusions about child:environment relations

The relationship between the child and environmental factors has been presented as

being governed by his or her individual psychological habitat, comprising within-child

characteristics, experiences, motivation, and intentions. The directionality of the

relationship between the child and any one environmental factor has been represented by

one of three basic models. One posits persons as subservient to environmental

influences; another posits the opposite view. A third model contends an equal and

reciprocal relationship between persons and the environment. The first two models are

essentially uni-directional, while the third presents a bi-directional exchange. Different

25

theories about the strength of impact of these bi-directional exchanges have been

conceptualised in four models. The interactional model leaves both persons and

environment relatively unchanged. On the other hand, organismic, contextual, and

transactional models all propound changes to both persons and environment, but in

varying ways.

The current study incorporates the dynamic bi-directional aspects of these models, in that

“actual behavior is a function of a continuous process of multi-directional interactions of

feedback between the individual and the situation he or she encounters” (Magnusson &

Törestad, 1992, p. 92). With the added qualification that the situation comprises

recognisable physical, social, structural, and cultural components of the environment

within a specific time-space setting. The reciprocal relationship between the psychological

habitat of the child and components of the environment, and the relationship of that

influence to the child’s behaviour, is schematically presented in Figure 1.3 as a

contextualisation of the child’s experience in a child care centre.

Figure 1.3 Contextualisation of the child’s experience in a child care centre

The diagram depicts a cross-section of the relationships that exist from the time the child

arrives at the centre in the morning until he or she leaves in the afternoon. At any point of

time, it is likely that one or more factors will exert greater influence than others, with

varying strengths of uni- and bi-directional influence constantly changing.

26

1.5.10 Summary of concepts of environment in the current study

To help provide a conceptual framework for the current study, the term environment has

been defined as the totality of four constructs: settings, situations, contexts and milieux.

Settings are defined as physical entities governed by structure and culture that provide

boundaries in time and space, while situations represent the interaction between people in

settings, or between a person and an object within a setting. In addition to the child, each

situation incorporates different but interrelated physical, social, cultural, and structural

components of the environment. The four components are located in the micro-

environment of the child care centre, which impact on specific settings and situations, but

can also be indirectly influenced by the less proximal exo- and remote macro-systems

through the meso-system. The overall production of child:object or child:child behaviours

is dependent on the psychological habitat of each participants. Comprising within-child

characteristics, the psychological habitat contributes to the child’s milieu and provides the

child with his or her context for activity. Context and milieu are considered personal

constructs and, therefore, cannot be interpreted objectively by an observer. However,

actions that take place in a situation can be recorded as a sequence or stream of

individual behaviour units or episodes. Any action occurring at a particular point in time

within a unit or episode can be assigned to a momentary situation. Analyses of streams of

behaviour provide indications of the child’s relationship with the totality of the environment

across time and space within a child care centre.

1.6 Conceptualising problem behaviour

Closely connected to matters concerned with conceptualising child:environment relations

are two issues concerned with conceptualising problem behaviour in early childhood.

First, is the confusion created by inconsistent use of terms to describe behaviours, as well

as failures to acknowledge the impact of different social values and cultural beliefs about

the same behaviours. Second, are limitations placed on the utility of findings by unstated

assumptions about for whom specific child behaviours may be a problem, and

uncontested assumptions about who should identify them.

1.6.1 Inconsistencies and differences in definitions of behaviour

Studies of child behaviour have been undertaken by investigators from a range of

disciplines, including various branches of education, psychology, sociology, philosophy,

medicine, and architecture. The breadth of interest in the subject over a period of more

than 60 years has produced findings that have undoubtedly made a significant contribution

to understanding factors that may underpin some children’s behaviour in some situations.

27

However, the variety of contributions has introduced inconsistencies and ambiguities in the

definitions of behaviour, which have the potential to confuse the problematic with the non-

problematic and could confound interpretations of behaviour:environment relationships.

As Shantz (1987) noted: “a multitude of terms are used almost interchangeably in the

literature: behavior that is aggressive, agonistic, assertive, aversive, coercive, conflictual,

disruptive, and sometimes the very broad term ‘negative’ ” (p. 284). A particular dilemma

for investigators is that some of the behaviours have been portrayed by some writers as

indicating positive rather than negative child attributes. The contradictions result from

behaviours being classified as problematic on arbitrary social, cultural, and ideological

grounds, rather than on the basis of an accepted conceptualisation of what constitutes

problem behaviour at a particular time and place. The extent of the difficulties for research

raised by the failure of investigators to properly conceptualise and define problematic

behaviour is illustrated below, using aggression as an example.

1.6.1.1 Problems associated with defining aggression

One of the most frequently occurring discussions in the literature on aggression centres on

the difficulty confronting observers trying to discriminate “real” from “pretend” fighting. For

instance, Etaugh and Happach (1979) and Sherburne, Utley, McConnell, and Gannon

(1988) have noted that distinctions have not always been made between action that is

intended to do harm, sometimes termed “hostile aggression” (Behar, 1977; Berkowitz,

1993; Hinde, 1987; Howes, Hamilton, & Matheson, 1994), or “physical aggression”

(Björkqvist, Österman, & Kaukiainen, 1992; Sanson, Prior, Smart, & Oberklaid, 1993;

Smith & Connolly, 1980), and aggression which is acted out as part of role play,

sometimes termed “thematic aggression” (Feshbach, 1955; Sanson, Prior et al., 1993), or

“playful aggression” (Shantz, 1987; Turner, 1991).

A similar lack of distinction, between “fighting” and “rough-and-tumble play”, has also been

reported as being problematic in assessing aggressive behaviour (e.g., Goldstein, 1992;

Zoccolillo, 1993). Whereas fighting may rightly be categorised as aggressive behaviour,

rough-and-tumble play is sometimes included as aggression (e.g., Björkqvist & Niemelä,

1992; Loo, 1972), and sometimes not (e.g., Howe, Moller, Chambers, & Petrakos, 1993;

Smith & Connolly, 1980). For others, particularly those representing aspects of counter

theory (e.g., Reinert & Huang, 1987), some rough-and-tumble play, or roughhousing, is

seen as a normal activity for young children and even encouraged (e.g., Porter, 1994).

A related problem is the question of distinguishing between anger and aggression, which

has been seen as central to determining whether anger should be regarded as a child

28

problem behaviour like aggression, or a symptom of something else. Some investigators

have seen anger as a defining feature of aggression (e.g., Crick, Bigbee, & Howes, 1996),

while others have separated anger from aggression (e.g., Berkowitz, 1993; Tremblay et

al., 1992), noting that not all anger results in aggression (e.g., Averill, 1982; Eisenberg,

Fabes, Nyman, Bernzweig, & Pinuelas, 1994). On the other hand is the view that anger

plays a role in the development of hostile aggression (Zahn-Waxler, 1993), or is a

motivational force (Cicchetti et al., 1995). Alternatively, anger has been viewed as a

normal and necessary part of a young child’s social development. For example, Stephan

(1993) suggested that “anger is an emotion and should not be suppressed”, contending

that “young children need to be supported, their anger acknowledged, and to be given a

legitimate outlet for their anger, e.g., punching a punching bag rather than another child”

(p. 3). Adding a cultural caveat, Cole, Zahn-Waxler, and Smith (1994) contended that

anger is more acceptable in boys than it is in girls.

Offering a different perspective, Fabes, Eisenberg, Smith, and Murphy (1996) cast doubt

on the authenticity of some children’s displays of anger, suggesting that those aged 4-5

years can act out the appearance of being angry, with the possibility of further confusing

an observer’s interpretation of child:environment relations. Earlier findings added

complications by contending that children aged 3 years cannot pose anger, even partially

(Lewis et al., 1987). Accepting the findings of both studies creates particular difficulties for

the identification of children’s aggressive behaviours within the normal 3-5 years age-mix

of the “preschoolers” rooms in most child care centres.

Anger has also been associated with “conflict”, which has tended to be equated with

aggression (Shantz, 1987), comprising disputes, arguments, and fights (Rende & Killen,

1992). As a result, conflict has been seen as difficult to distinguish from aggression,

particularly when it involves interference or competition for resources (Hartup & Laursen,

1993). Other investigators (e.g., Laursen & Hartup, 1989), have taken the opposite view

and separated conflict and aggression, while Pierce and Cohen (1995) insisted that:

It is important at the outset to make conceptual distinctions between aggression and the broader field of study, conflict. Aggression is behavior that is intended to cause harm, whereas conflict is the state of disagreement, or opposition, between two people. (pp. 292-3)

Conflict has also been described as resulting from the incompatible behaviours or goals of

two or more children. The incompatibility being expressed when one child opposes,

resists, or retaliates in the face of another child’s actions or statements (Brown, 1996;

Pellegrini & Perlmutter, 1988; Rende & Killen, 1992).

29

Earlier, Shantz (1987) had also contended that the difference in operationalisation of

conflict and aggression, and the fact that most conflicts do not involve aggression, makes

them separate concepts. The difference was accentuated by Laursen and Hartup (1989)

who found that conflict occurred amongst most children. Building on the frequency of

occurrence, Stephen (1993) claimed that “conflict is a normal, healthy part of young

children learning to socialise” (p. 3). However, dependent on which of the above views the

observer accepts, the extent to which any one child is involved in conflicts has the

potential to create the impression that the child is aggressive.

Linked also to the possible misinterpretation of actions arising from children opposing, or

resisting the demands of others, or retaliating against them, may be a failure of observers

to discriminate between different functions of aggression. For example, hostile aggression

has been defined as an unprovoked physical attack on a person in order to harm him or

her (Berkowitz, 1993; Hegland & Rix, 1990; Martin & Ross, 1996; Vlietstra, 1981).

Conversely, physical action that emanates from an angry retaliation to some perceived

wrong has been termed reactive aggression (Crick & Dodge, 1996; Pierce & Cohen, 1995;

Strassberg, Dodge, Pettit, & Bates, 1994).

To correctly interpret children’s behaviour, investigators may be forced to consider

antecedent events and other issues, including within-child characteristics. For example,

manifestations of reactive aggression in some children have been linked to disparate

cultural norms which sanction the use of force as a means of standing up for one’s own

rights (Alloway, 1997; Bandura & Walters, 1959; Rodd, 1996). It has also been described

as “emotional aggression” (Berkowitz, 1993), being the consequence of a child’s low

emotional regulation (Eisenberg et al., 1994). Other researchers have seen the lack of

emotional control as implying impulsivity (e.g., Saifer, 1993), although it has been

observed that “...there is no universally accepted definition of impulsivity” (Halperin et al.,

1995, p. 1200). Alternatively, reactive aggression has been seen as an attempt to be

assertive (Cicchetti et al., 1995), which adds further difficulties to the interpretation of child

behaviour.

In some studies, for example, assertiveness has been used as a simile for aggression

(Shantz, 1987) and even included as a measure of aggression (e.g., Belsky, 1988), while

other investigators have separated the two terms (e.g., Turner, 1991). On the other hand,

O’Brien (1998) observed that different teachers described the same child behaviour as

assertive or aggressive dependent upon their view of the child as much as the behaviour.

A critical role for teachers’ perceptions of children’s dispositions in the assessment of child

30

behaviours was conceptualised in the predispositional theory proposed nearly 30 years

ago by Stebbins (1971).

Alternative views of social development and cultural values have led to the suggestion that

assertiveness is a prosocial behaviour; a mark of self-expression which involves striving

for mastery and self-enhancement, without hostility, and without violating the rights or

feelings of others (e.g., Berkowitz, 1993; Deluty, 1979). Jewett (1992) defined assertion

as a behaviour through which children maintain and defend their rights and not one that

should not be confused with aggression. Nevertheless, confusion is evident and a failure

to differentiate between children who are being assertive and those being aggressive has

been noted as a source of confounding the rating of child behaviour (Hegland & Rix,

1990).

1.6.2 Describing and demarcating problem behaviours

Utilising general labels as descriptions of behaviours to identify actions as problematic is

clearly beset by difficulties. These difficulties not only emanate from distinguishing the

intent of children, but also arise because the basis for deciding whether a particular

behaviour should be regarded as a problem or not may be quite arbitrary (Berkowitz,

1993). It has been contended that decisions frequently depend on the characteristics of

the evaluator (Bandura, 1973; Crowther, Bond, & Rolf, 1981; Goldstein, 1992), social

standards at a particular time (Hyde, 1984; Viemerö, 1992) and cultural values (Luk,

Leung, Bacon-Shone, & Lieh-Mak, 1991; Newth & Corbett, 1993). Inconsistencies in the

identification of problem behaviours have the potential to limit or confound the

establishment of patterned relationships between children and the environment.

Consequently, a concept of unwanted child behaviours (UCBs) has been formulated for

the current study to minimise confusion between the description of a particular type of

behaviour and the immediate status of that behaviour as problematic.

1.6.3 The concept of unwanted child behaviours

UCBs are defined, in part, as the unsolicited and unwelcome activities of one child that

intrude upon the activities of centre staff members or other children to the extent that staff

interrupt what they are doing in order to curtail the intrusion.

Overall, child behaviours classified as UCBs equate with many accepted definitions of

problematic or conduct-disordered behaviour found in the literature on aberrant child

behaviour. However, UCBs can also include joyous and friendly exuberant behaviours,

including glee (Sherman, 1975), when they are exhibited at an inappropriate time,

31

particularly in classrooms. Therefore, UCBs include a wider range of behaviours than

those described generally as a problem or negative.

Regardless of the child’s activity, his or her behaviour is categorised as unwanted only if a

staff member interrupted what they were doing in order to curtail the behaviour. If a staff

member does not attend to the behaviour then it is not classified as unwanted. A staff

member’s decision to intervene or ignore a child’s behaviour is regarded as a facet of the

cultural component of the centre’s environment. The failure of staff to notice child

behaviours that might otherwise be considered problematic is regarded as a facet of both

the cultural and the structural components of the centre’s environment.

Interruptions to staff activity that could reasonably be expected to come within the staff

members’ normal duty of care to young children are not identified as UCBs. These include

disruptions such as those caused by children’s toileting “accidents”, distress occasioned

by separation from parents, the need for treatment and comfort resulting from minor

illnesses and accidents, or a child’s request for help.

1.6.4 The arbiters of unwanted child behaviours

Inherent in the concept of UCBs is the premise that their existence can be determined only

by members of child care centre staff who are concurrently experiencing the totality of the

environment in which such behaviours occur. UCBs in the current study are, in the first

place, a phenomenological perception of children’s behaviour by staff. They are identified

by staff on the basis of their occurrence in a specific situation.

Identifying UCBs as the intersection of staff intervention in a child’s behaviour represented

a novel approach to establishing the foundations for data analysis. However, the strategy

is in accord with Stebbins (1973), who contended that “it is doubtful...that valid data

collection on and analysis of the physical conditions of disorderly behavior can be

mounted without knowledge of how teachers define the situations in which such behavior

occurs” (p. 293). Based on investigations of teacher:pupil interactions in school

classrooms, Stebbins (1971) had previously listed 13 indicators that operationalise the

definition of a situation, which “…is a synthesis, interpretation, and interrelation of the

salient predispositions, intentions, and elements of the setting” (p. 221). Among other

points, he noted that a knowledge of how the setting was defined meant that behaviour

appearing problematic to the outside observer, such as talking out of turn, could be

mitigated by circumstances not known to the outsider (Stebbins, 1971).

32

1.6.5 Advantages of utilising the concept of UCBs

As an aim of the data collection in the current study was to identify child behaviours that

were perceived by staff as unwanted, and staff intervention was used as the sole marker

for such behaviours, the margin for observer error in recording occurrences of UCBs was

significantly reduced. There were no requirements for the observer to make any

judgements about the nature or intent of child behaviours, or be cognisant of prevailing

social or cultural values that may confound interpretation of some child behaviours. At the

same time, using staff intervention in children’s behaviour to identify UCBs removed the

need for the observer to be selective in the type of behaviours recorded, as is usually

required when utilising checklists. The strategy also eliminated the need for the observer

to memorise codes representing categories of child behaviours.

1.6.6 Consistency in the identification of UCBs

In many studies, considerable attention has been given to establishing acceptable levels

of agreement between the behaviour ratings of multiple observers to ensure the reliable

recording of those behaviours. In the current investigation, consistency in the identification

of UCBs was achieved by utilising staff as the sole arbiters of child behaviours as

unwanted. The observer had only to identify the staff member’s act of intervention, which

made recording of UCBs less prone to error. As previously mentioned, the actions of staff

represented facets of the cultural and structural components of the centre’s environment

and were subject to analysis and interpretation as influences on child behaviour in the

same manner as physical and social factors. The process of data analysis provided a far

greater opportunity for detecting inconsistencies in staff intervention in children’s activities,

as well as providing details of those inconsistencies, than would normally be available in

studies that only correlate the level of agreement between observers.

It is acknowledged, however, that a high level of staff agreement about centre-wide

attitudes to specific child behaviours would facilitate the identification of other

environmental influences on UCBs. It can reasonably be expected that higher levels of

agreement would be achieved in centres with stable staff and management within the

setting and structure of a fully accredited community-based child care centre. Staff who

had successfully completed the accreditation process are more likely to exhibit a

consistent group approach to the behaviour management of young children. A failure to

reach or maintain consensus would almost certainly lead to staff resignations or conflicts,

providing evidence of an unstable staff membership and, possibly, management

difficulties. It is further acknowledged, therefore, that accreditation and stability are

33

important characteristics of the setting selected for the current study1. The literature on

salient features of individual characteristics of staff, and staff:staff interactions, as they

impact on group management processes within child care centres is reviewed in Chapter

Two.

1.6.7 Use of the term UCB in this thesis

Throughout this thesis, the term UCB is used to describe the wider range of child

behaviours that attract staff intervention. However, in discussions of the literature, original

terms that indicate a range of child behaviours narrower than those categorised as UCBs

have been retained to indicate the parameters of studies being reviewed.

In terms of counts, frequencies, and percentages of the total number of UCBs, none is

weighted or accorded a greater or lesser value relative to other UCBs. Synoptically, no

UCB is any more unwanted than is another. For the purposes of analysis and

interpretation of child:environment relationships, however, the child’s behaviour

antecedent and consequent to staff intervention, as revealed by the detailes of his or her

behaviour stream, were examined to provide a catalogue of all activity.

1.7 Categorising the methodology

Borrowing a term from the biological sciences, the general approach of this work is as an

ecological study. As such, it is concerned with the relationship between the organism (the

child) and his or her environment (the child care centre). The approach may just as easily

have been designated as an ethological study, but that may have emphasised a

transactional relationship between the organism and environment (Pellegrini, 1992).

Similar to the ethological approach, however, the current study does “...look to the

immediate antecedents of behavior, what functions behavior may serve, and how behavior

has developed, both ontogenetically and phylogenetically” (Pellegrini, 1992, p. 285). On

1 In 1993 the Quality Improvement and Accreditation System (QI&AS) was introduced Australia-wide as a voluntary scheme to encourage individual child care centres to achieve “…a well-considered, integrated, and professional approach to providing one of our society’s most valuable services…” (National Childcare Accreditation Council, 1993, Foreword). Undertaking the accreditation process involves centre staff, management, and parent representatives in a considerable amount of written work, planning and discussion, as well as submitting their centres to inspection, over a period of several months. A particular feature of the accreditation process is the requirement for a high level of agreement between staff and the other representatives on a range of day-to-day child care centre issues. Without consensus accreditation would be difficult if not impossible to achieve. In addition to providing a highly transparent form of implementing publicly acceptable standards of child care, centres that successfully complete the process are certified for up to three years and are eligible to receive additional funding benefits from the Commonwealth Government.

34

the other hand, restricting the membership of the phylogenic group to a specific social unit

in the natural conditions of a child care centre, with particular reference to the unique

culture and structure of the centre, could be construed as taking an ethnographic

approach (Erickson, 1986; Smith & Connolly, 1980; Turner, 1991). However, according to

Erickson and Mohatt (1982), general ethnography provides only summary accounts of

what people customarily do, and it is microethnography that focuses on particular cultural

scenes within key institutional settings. In particular, “...microethnography attempts to

specify the processes of face-to-face interaction in the events by which the “outcomes” of

those events are produced” (p. 137). Therefore, the current study could just as easily be

said to take a microethnographic approach to investigating unwanted child behaviours in a

child care centre, although it may have appeared that the emphasis was on cultural

matters. Although important, the culture of the setting is assumed to exert an influence

equally and consistently on all children, rendering it no more influential on the production

of UCBs than the physical, social, and structural components of the environment. To

avoid an undue emphasis on any specific area, the current work incorporated elements of

all three approaches in an eclectic design.

Similarly, the structure of the investigation could be construed as a case study. The well

defined building and fenced play areas of the child care centre, its regular operating days,

along with specific opening and closing times, provide the spatial and temporal boundaries

suited to a case study (Stake, 1995; Yin, 1994). The centre could be used as the case but

an approach more suited to one of the relationships models would be to use the children

as multiple case studies within a stable setting, albeit one composed of dynamic

situations. As Yin (1994) notes “...you would use the case study method because you

deliberately wanted to cover contextual conditions - believing that they might be highly

pertinent to your phenomenon of study” (p. 13). According to Wener (1989), such an

approach may also be appropriate as

...case studies are best used to answering the ‘how’ and ‘why’ questions because of their unique ability to deal with the full range of evidence. They investigate phenomena in real-life contexts, where multiple sources of evidence are needed for the assessment of complex and multicausal events. (pp. 294-5)

A major difficulty in adopting such a design for the current investigation concerns the

creation of the multiple sources of evidence, particularly in relation to accuracy of the

collected data. In general, other investigations have relied on second observers, the use

of documentation such as policy statements, and the views of participants, to support

triangulated validation of the observational data. In the current study, however, the

observation of staff intervention in children’s activities is the crucial but instrumental event

35

that identifies UCBs. The focus of analysis is the child:environment relationship at the time

when the UCB is identified by staff who, as previously mentioned, are part of the

concurrent environmental influence. Soliciting the pre-or post-observation views of staff in

regard to children’s problem behaviours or supposed environmental influences on the

manifestation of those behaviours cannot provide situational information concurrent with

UCBs. The use of children’s records or other documentation, or the opinions of parents, is

similarly unhelpful. On the other hand, the ongoing questioning of staff and children during

the observation period, or the presence of a second observer, would almost certainly

create substantial difficulties in relation to maintaining the integrity of the natural setting.

Therefore, the emphasis for validation of findings in the current study has been based

on three aspects of the data. First, ensuring that the observer recorded data reliably

and consistently over the period of investigation. Second, making sure that the

identification of staff interventions from the recorded data, as a forerunner of UCB

identification, was accurate and consistent. Third, establishing patterns of

child:environment relationships across multiple settings and situations involving

different children. The first and second factors are discussed in Chapter Three, while

the third is illustrated in Chapters Four and Five.

1.7.1 Raw numbers

There is, undoubtedly, a degree of amalgam in the approaches used for this investigation

which may defy precise methodological categorisation, particularly in relation to most of

the previous studies of problem behaviours exhibited by children aged 3-5 years.

However, no previous studies have been undertaken to determine the influence of the

totality of the environment in a child care centre on the manifestation of unwanted child

behaviours.

Thus, an essentially qualitative approach incorporates elements of a case study design,

using the children as multiple cases, in a single child care centre setting. It is

acknowledged, however, that analysis of the transcripts for evidence of environmental

influence would be enhanced if number, frequency and duration could place UCBs

synoptically and in a clear timeframe. In accord with Erickson (1986) and Stake (1995),

the raw numbers for child attendance patterns and occurrences of unwanted child

behaviours in relation to settings, activities, and peer associations are provided for

inspection (Appendices 2-7).

36

1.8 Summary

The purpose of the current study was to investigate the relationship between the totality of

the environment of a single child care centre and occurrences of unwanted behaviours

exhibited by attending children aged 3-5 years. To provide a conceptual framework for the

investigation, a variety of issues associated with definitions of environmental factors and

children’s problem behaviours were considered. As a consequence, the child care centre

was defined as a micro-system with an environment comprising interrelated physical,

social, structural, and cultural components. All activities were seen to take place in

physical time-space locations designated as settings. Within settings, persons relate to

objects or other persons to generate situations that give rise to behaviours. The

behaviours were depicted as occurring in streams or sequences, which could be

examined in detail through identification of behaviour units and momentary situations.

Within this framework, UCBs were recognised as a phenomenological perception of staff

and could, therefore, only be identified reliably by staff. Consideration was given to

methodological issues, particularly those concerned with reliability of data collection, the

maintenance of ecological validity, and presentation of raw data. Together, these matters

were composed to form a conceptual framework for the assessment of previous studies in

the area under investigation, development of the data collection strategy, procedures for

identification of UCBs, analysis and interpretation of environmental influences, and the

basis for presentation of findings.

1.9 Assumptions underlying method

Hall (1959) contended that “to interact with the environment is to be alive, and to fail to do

so is to be dead” (p. 62). Less dramatically, perhaps, but more recently, Bijou (1992)

asserted that “...the individual is always in interaction with the environment” (p. 68). The

current study agrees with both views and makes specific assumptions about the

relationship between the environment and the unwanted behaviours of young children. In

particular:

1. Although internal states play a major role in determining the duration and affect,

the unwanted behaviours of young children will primarily occur as a result of

immediate stimulation external to the organism.

2. The behaviour of young children can be understood only in relation to the

environment in which it takes place. Therefore, an understanding of concurrent

environmental influences is essential for an appropriate interpretation of behaviour.

37

1.10 Limitations of the methodology

This study was concerned with investigating the relationship between environmental

factors and occurrences of UCBs in a single child care centre. As such, the generalisation

of findings to other centres is limited by the degree of similarities in setting conditions and

other environmental factors shared by other centres.

1.11 Sources of personal bias in research

It has been recognised for some time that research, particularly with a focus on human

behaviour, may be influenced by the researcher’s bias. Perspective may be positioned by

theoretical preconceptions constructed from professional training and experience, cultural

values, and personal background (McCall, 1969; Perry, 1994; Schwartz & Schwartz, 1969;

Vidich, 1969). As it has also been recognised that biases cannot be entirely filtered, I

concur with those who urge work to be prefaced with an explicit statement of the author’s

value premises and summary of relevant experiences (Erickson, 1996; McIntyre, 1993;

Stake, 1995). Consequently, I provide the following summary of specific features of my

background which I, and close colleagues, believe may influence aspects of this thesis.

In 1979, after completing my early childhood teacher training and teaching in a primary

school for a short period, I became director of a Local Government-managed child care

centre. Licensed to enroll 55 children per day, from six weeks to five years of age, the

centre operated from 7.30am until 5.30pm Monday to Friday, for 48 weeks each year.

The clinical austerity of the almost new building raised my interest in the physical

component of environmental influences on both child and adult behaviour. That interest

was increased as floor-carpet, wall-colours and a wider range of equipment was added to

the three playrooms.

After two years as director of the centre I resigned to take up a position with the

Department of Technical and Further Education (TAFE), in New South Wales (NSW), as a

teacher on the Child Care Certificate Course. The two-year full-time course of study and

practicums qualified graduates to work in a range of early childhood education and health

care services. One of my allotted teaching subjects was “space and equipment”. Three

years teaching and research reinforced my beliefs in the power of the environment to

influence child behaviour through the child’s continuous relationships with places and

objects as well as people.

After three years with TAFE, I returned to the early childhood workplace to direct a

recognised high-quality university-based child care centre. Operating for 10 hours each

38

day, 50 weeks per year, the centre was equipped with four playrooms for the daily

enrolment of 60 children from birth to five years. I held the position of director for four

years during which I was able to initiate and oversee substantial alteration to the building,

interior and outdoor play areas, as well as changes to the program structure and the

centre’s culture.

Since then, my work with several early childhood professional associations and research

into children’s behaviour, both in Australia and overseas, have given me the opportunity to

gain an understanding of child care centre operations in a variety of physical settings and

national cultures.

As a result of these experiences, I have come to the conclusion that the environments of

child care centres are substantially different to those of other early childhood services and

almost incomparable to schools. I also believe that unique physical, social, cultural, and

structural components of environment further separate centres from each other.

Therefore, I closely examine the generalisation of findings derived from research based on

one or two centres only. At the same time, I become suspicious of attempts to

unquestioningly apply findings across a range of different early childhood services, such

as preschools, occasional care, and playgroups. Finally, I find almost incomprehensible

any application of school-based research on behaviour to children in child care centres,

which does not allow for environmental factors as well as matters associated with the

maturational levels of children.

1.12 Organisation of remainder of the thesis

Chapter Two provides a two-part review of salient literature relevant to the psychological

habitat of the child and features of the environment of a child care centre that have been

found, or are thought to contribute to the manifestation of children's problem behaviours.

Chapter Three describes the methodology used in collecting data for the current

investigation, and delineates the techniques used for analysing that data.

Chapter Four reports the outcome of the data collecting strategy and presents evidence

for occurrences of unwanted child behaviours.

Chapter Five comprises an analysis and interpretation of the data, which demonstrates

differences in children’s experiences of child care and shows relationships between

environmental factors and occurrences of unwanted child behaviours.

39

Chapter Six provides a summary of the major findings, discusses some of the salient

points and draws conclusions about implications of the findings for future study and/or

practice.

40

CHAPTER TWO

Overview of approaches used in previous studies to identify the

causes of children’s problem behaviours

2.1 Introduction

To provide a basis for analysis and interpretation of the data, findings from previous

studies in two related areas pertaining to the manifestation of children’s problem

behaviours were reviewed. The first area concerned investigations that have reported a

wide variety of child characteristics that may provide the child with components of his or

her psychological habitat. These included genetic and inherited traits, behaviours

developed as a result of toxins or trauma, and those learned outside a child care centre.

The second area considered studies and texts that identify or imply a relationship

between child care centres generally, or specific environmental factors within child care

centres, and manifestations of problematic child behaviours.

2.2 Components of the child’s psychological habitat

A considerable portion of the literature on child behaviour reports a range of findings that

correlate problems with a wide variety of qualities inherited or learned by the child. For the

most part, these findings indicate the possible existence of a propensity or potential for a

child with specific characteristics or experiences to act in, or react to, particular situations

in a particular manner. In many cases, however, findings have been challenged on

methodological grounds that limit their utility or generalisation. Additionally, many of the

researchers concede that their findings for any individual child may be mitigated by the

environment, although few have identified that environment or the specific factors within it

that may affect the likelihood of problem child behaviours.

The research to date has made a substantial contribution to an understanding of genetic

and family risk factors that may create the potential for child behaviour problems.

However, little attention has been paid to situations or settings that turn the propensity into

expression. Support for this contention is provided by a review of the relevant literature

under the general headings of “nature” and “nurture”.

2.2.1 Nature as an explanation for UCB

Factors contributing to the child’s nature have, generally, encompassed the biological

41

individuality of the child that has resulted from genetic and/or inherited characteristics, and

prenatal injury or preterm birth. For the most part, the outcomes of these factors have

been categorised under “temperament” and “personality”. Although the literature on these

subjects is voluminous, the evidence for deterministic effect on child behaviour is far from

conclusive.

2.2.1.1 Genetics and hereditability

Over many years, for example, genetics have been implicated in a number of behavioural

conditions for girls and boys, including depressive symptoms (Fergusson et al., 1994a;

Fergusson, Horwood, & Lynskey, 1995; Field, Pickens, Fox, Nawrocki, & Gonzalez, 1995),

disruptive behaviours (Greenberg, Speltz, & DeKlyen, 1993), hyperactivity (Lambert,

1990), conduct disorder (Costello & Angold, 1993; Wahler, 1990), and aggression

(Achenbach, 1993; Morris, 1967; Tinbergen, 1968). Some researchers have looked at

specific gender differences in the heredity of child problem behaviours (e.g.,

Braungart-Rieker et al., 1995; Lambert, 1990). Others have tried to explain broader

differences between children by looking for “...the existence and effects of genes that can

turn on or off various processes at different times in the life cycle” (Hyde, 1984, p. 732). In

a later study Edelbrock et al. (1995) found a connection between inherited characteristics

and behavioural malfunctioning in childhood and adolescent, but they also observed that

genetic effects were not equally strong in all areas.

Over a period of two decades, a number of investigators have contended that genetics

alone could not explain behaviour, acknowledging the known role of toxins, trauma, and

disease in adversely affecting normal development (e.g., Greenberg et al., 1993;

Lefkowitz, Eron, Walder, & Huesmann, 1977). The less understood role played by

experience and interactions with the environment was also acknowledged, with a belief

that “...experiential influences may well result in alterations in gene expression per se”

(Reite, 1987, p. 597).

2.2.1.2 Temperament and personality

A considerable amount of research has suggested that temperament is an important

constituent in the expression of behaviour (e.g., Barnett, Schaafsma, Guzman, & Parker,

1991; Derryberry & Reed, 1994; Dunn & McGuire, 1992; Eisenberg et al., 1994; Pavuluri &

Smith, 1996; Prior, Sanson, Oberklaid, & Northam, 1987; Sanson, Smart, Prior, Oberklaid,

& Pedlow, 1994; Slee & Cross, 1990; Sonuga-Barke, Lamparelli, Stevenson, Thompson,

& Henry, 1994; Stormont-Spurgin & Zentall, 1995). However, widespread and long-held

differences in definitions of temperament have characterised many investigation (e.g.,

42

Goldsmith et al., 1987; Greenberg et al., 1993; Price & Bouffard, 1974). The role of

environmental factors, in particular, is accorded varying strength of influence and is not

explained well at any level. As a consequence, it has been noted that findings related to

the influence of temperament are not always easy to compare or generalise (Greenberg et

al, 1993; Prior et al., 1987).

For example, temperament has been defined by Buss and Plomin as “...a set of inherited

personality traits that appear early in life....genetic in origin” (Goldsmith et al., 1987, p.

508). In this, they drew a distinction between personality traits and personality which, they

said, originated solely in environmental events. Thomas and Chess described

temperament as “...the stylistic component of behavior...” (Goldsmith et al., 1987, p. 508),

viewing temperament as separate from motivation, abilities and personality but contending

that temperament, motivation, and ability interact to determine behaviour. While

appearing to agree in part, Rothbart asserted that temperament was only one of many

factors influencing behaviour. In addition to those mentioned, she included environmental

related factors, such as the individual’s knowledge structures, and expectations,

influenced by previous reinforcement or punishment (Goldsmith et al., 1987).

These expectations are also implied in the “reactivity” component of temperament. For

example, Goldsmith stated that “it is the expression of emotions and emotional arousability

that is identified with temperament...” (Goldsmith et al., 1987, p. 511). Buss and Plomin

specified three traits. The first, emotionality, they equated to stress; the second, activity,

comprised tempo and vigor; and, third, sociability. They also noted that impulsivity,

described as “...one of the original temperaments” (Goldsmith et al., 1987, p. 512), was no

longer included. In some contrast, Rothbart proposed four dimensions of temperamental

variability: negative reactivity, positive reactivity, behavioural inhibition to novel or intense

stimuli, and the capacity through effort to focus and shift attention (Goldsmith et al., 1987,

p. 513).

Using a broader approach, nine categories were provided by Thomas and Chess. These

were “...rhythmicity of biological functions, activity level, approach to or withdrawal from

new stimuli, adaptability, sensory threshold, predominant quality of mood, intensity of

mood expression, distractibility, and persistence/attention span” (Goldsmith et al., 1987, p.

513). A rating scale for these items allowed individuals to be designated as having an

easy, slow-to-warm-up, or difficult temperament. Difficult temperament was found to be

associated with more behavioural problems, although the findings from a study by

Sanson, Smart, Prior, and Oberklaid (1993) “…also emphasized the contribution of both

43

within-child and environmental characteristics to the aetiology of these problems” (p.

1213).

Finally, the direction of interactions between temperament and environment also appears

to be changeable. One view sees temperament as exerting an influence on the

environment and that the influence is bi-directional in that the temperament can be shaped

(e.g., Goldsmith et al., 1987; Pavuluri & Smith, 1996; Prior et al., 1987). A similar claim

has been made for personality, including not only environment but also the temporal affect

of past experiences (Hinde, Easton, Meller, & Tamplin, 1983). On the other hand,

Rothbart defined temperament as “relatively stable” although she observed that

“…personality structures and strategies are developed in the course of maturation and

subsequent interaction with the environment” (Goldsmith et al., 1987, p. 510).

The arguments referred to above would appear to indicate that assigning temperament a

role in the manifestation of child behaviour problems is beset by difficulties. These include

disagreements about a definition of the concept, a failure to clarify its relationship with

environment, and difficulties separating the confounding influence of early development.

In addition, it has been observed that child temperament is most frequently measured by

parental rating and, therefore, “...might well be as much an indicator of parental

perceptions and biases (an environmental factor) as of biological predisposition” (Dodge,

1990, p. 700).

These concerns reflect earlier assertions that the evidence for an association of very early

temperament with behaviour problems is not strong (e.g., Greenberg et al., 1993; Robins,

1991). Additionally, a recent review of relevant studies concluded that:

...much of the research concerning early childhood temperament and behaviour has generally been inconsistent or methodologically unsound....it is unclear whether the early childhood temperamental and behavioural characteristics studied are equivalent and comparable. The result is a body of research comprised of many small-scale investigations which have, in general, produced mutually exclusive findings that cannot be summarised to form a generalised body of knowledge. (Hemphill, 1996, p. 115)

Nevertheless, there is wide support for the use of temperament as a reason for the

manifestation of child problem behaviours and even a cause of them, with staff of centres

being urged to take child temperament into account when working with young children

(e.g., Aloa, 1994; Anderson-Goetz & Worobey, 1984; Mobley & Pullis, 1991; Stormont-

Spurgin & Zentall, 1995). At the same time, there have also been calls for situational

factors to be taken into account (e.g., Kean, 1997; Lerner, 1983; Price & Bouffard, 1974).

44

2.2.1.3 Prenatal trauma and preterm birth

Biological assault on the foetus, particularly involving damage to the frontal cortices, has

also been associated with later child problem behaviours. Occasioned by maternal

alcohol and other drug abuse, including cigarette smoking during pregnancy, the damage

has been related to the prenatally injured child having little or no anxiety, not responding

well to discipline, being unable to learn from experience (Pennington & Bennetto, 1993),

and having poor attention skills (Streissguth et al., 1984).

Utilising a theoretical model of cognitive operation, the condition has been attributed to an

impairment of executive functioning, said to create problems with emotional self-control

(Moffitt, 1993). The deficit is thought to occur as a consequence of the brain’s failure to

process information about the child’s environment in general, and social interactions in

particular (Bradley & Caldwell, 1995), thus limiting the child’s ability to learn from

experience. Recently, however, studies focusing on the model have been criticised as

using inadequate definitions of executive function, which has been viewed as limiting their

utility (Tannock, 1998).

A greater propensity for behaviour problems between the ages of three and six years was

also reported for children born preterm, particularly with very low birthweights (Rose,

Feldman, Rose, Wallace, & McCarton, 1992), although neonatal medical data on low

birthweight was not found to be a good predictor of such problems for children at age four

years (Goldberg, Corter, Lojkasek, & Minde, 1991). An earlier comparative study of 47

children aged three years born preterm with 47 born at term found no difference in

occurrences of behaviour problems between the two groups generally. However, a sub-

group of preterm children who had respiratory distress syndrome did demonstrate a higher

incidence of behaviour problems than preterm children who did not exhibit the syndrome

(O’Mara & Johnston, 1989).

Thus, it appears that prenatal exposure to drugs and other toxins, birth injury, or being

born preterm and having respiratory problems may increase a child’s propensity for

behaviour problems of some sort at some time. Overall, however, knowing that a child

has one or more of the above conditions does not appear to provide a clear indication that

he or she will be a behaviour problem for staff of child care centres.

2.2.2 Nurture as an explanation for UCB

Investigations into the effects on child behaviour of nurture cover a wide range of

influences, experiences, and learned behaviours (Slee, Murray-Harvey, & Ward, 1996).

45

These include comparatively infrequent early childhood events, for example, illness and

hospitalisation (Drotar & Sturm, 1992), the trauma of war (Chimienti, Nasr, & Khalifeh,

1989; Le, 1986), and the death of loved ones (Christian, 1997; Greenberg, 1996; Parker,

1995). In general, however, the majority of research appears to concentrate on the

influence of more widely experienced family circumstances, particularly those described as

adverse. Most prominent under this heading are the individual or combined impact of

marital discord, family instability, and inappropriate parenting behaviour, especially in

matters of discipline.

The findings of most studies are reported as correlations between child behaviour

problems and socio-economic, educational, and other demographic characteristics of

parents. However, the utility of the approach was challenged more than 20 years ago by

Bronfenbrenner, one of America’s leading developmental psychologists (Vasta, 1992),

who suggested that such attributes are “...crude and undifferentiated categories that do

little more than locate people in terms of their social address” (Bronfenbrenner, 1979, p.

17).

Despite the criticism, the findings of most investigations are still presented under specific

predetermined attributes. A number of the classifications have been endowed with such

acceptance that they are frequently included on application forms and other child records

kept by child care centres. Amongst these are marital status of the parent(s), and ordinal

birth position as well as details of age and number of siblings. These and others of the

most salient demographic features are utilised as headings in the following review of the

literature.

2.2.2.1 Single parenthood

Although a wide body of literature nominates having a single parent as a frequent

characteristic of behaviour problems in school-age children, there is little evidence to

suggest that the marital state of parents is, on its own, a determinant of children’s problem

behaviours. In the main, early childhood behaviour problems have been correlated with

factors commonly concurrent with single parenthood, such as low levels of parent

educational and low socio-economic status which combine to affect poor child rearing

practices, rather than correlating with marital status per se.

On the other hand, expectations for child behaviours held by teachers, based on their

stereotyped image of single parent families, has been seen as a factor in identifying child

behaviour problems. For example, it was noted that studies in the late 1970s and early

46

1980s found teachers more likely to hold negative attitudes to children of single parents

compared to those from intact homes (Elliott, 1985). Almost 20 years later, it appeared

that such attitudes still existed, evidenced by the Australian Early Childhood Association

reminding subscribers to its resource book series that “many single-parent families provide

a stable, happy environment for children” (Parker, 1996, p. 6).

Parker (1996) also observed that children of parents in the process of separation or

divorce were likely to exhibit adverse behaviours, supporting Dunn and McGuire (1992)

who found marital conflict a more important factor in the creation of child behaviour

problems than single parenthood.

2.2.2.2 Marital conflict

Similar to single parenthood, marital conflict is mentioned frequently as a family

characteristic of children with behaviour problems (e.g., Cohen & Bromet, 1992; Pavuluri,

Luk, Clarkson, & McGee, 1995; Shaw, Vondra, Hommerding, Keenan, & Dunn, 1994;

Stormont-Spurgin & Zentall, 1995; Strassberg et al., 1994). However, unlike assumed

links between single parenthood and child behaviour problems, researchers have made

firmer connections between conflictual situations and the creation of detrimental nurturing

environments likely to engender problem behaviour in the child. In particular, it has been

found that marital conflict may increase the likelihood of cold unresponsive parenting

(Gottman & Katz, 1989; Kazdin, 1993). The effect has been seen to heighten children’s

levels of distress, making them more prone to bouts of anger and aggression (Cummings,

Iannotti, & Zahn-Waxler, 1985), particularly when violence is also observed at home

(Fantuzzo et al., 1991; Sanson & Di Muccio, 1993).

However, Katz and Gottman (1995) noted that children are not equally affected by marital

conflict, citing earlier claims that less than 30% of children show adverse reactions to

parental divorce. In a longitudinal study of children at age five years and again at age

eight years, they found “there was no relationship between marital hostility and children’s

externalizing for children with high vagal tone2, suggesting that high vagal tone can buffer

children from the negative effects of marital hostility” (p.83). Earls and Jung (1988) had

earlier taken a broader view and suggested that the child’s temperament also played a

role in their behavioural reaction to aversive situations, although Greenberg et al. (1993)

2 “Vagal tone assesses the functioning of the parasympathetic branch of the autonomic nervous system (ANS), which is the branch of the ANS most related to soothing and the restoration of calm in the body….[it]….is measured by the rhythmic fluctuations in heart rate that accompany respiration” (Katz & Gottmann, 1995, p. 84).

47

contended that high IQ and situational factors also have to be considered.

2.2.2.3 Unstable family

A number of studies have implicated poor family functioning in the occurrence of child

behaviour problems (e.g., Fergusson et al., 1994a; Frick et al., 1992; Pavuluri et al., 1995),

occasioned by rejection of the child (Kazdin, 1993; Lefkowitz et al., 1977). Alternatively

viewed as a problem of poor interaction (Waters, Posada, Crowell, & Lay, 1993), a source

of discord (Braungart-Rieker et al., 1995), stress (Campbell, Breaux, Ewing, & Szumowski,

1986), and adversity (Campbell, 1994; Shaw et al., 1994; Susman, 1993), the main fault

has been identified as a failure of the parent(s) to teach children self-regulation skills

(Snyder, Edwards, McGraw, Kilgore, & Holton, 1994). It has also been suggested that

dysfunctional interactions very early in life can lead to young children developing defence

mechanisms “...involving some sort of cognitive or affective distortion, in an attempt to

suppress an otherwise possibly overwhelming emotional conflict” (McKeough, Yates, &

Marini, 1994, p. 299).

2.2.2.4 Maternal depression

Allied to reports on child behaviour problems implicating single parenthood, marital

conflict, and family instability are studies of maternal depression, which has been

recognised as relatively widespread. For example, according to an English study “the

incidence of major depression among young women is alarmingly high....Most vulnerable

are non-working mothers of preschool children, among whom the rate reaches as high as

40%” (Puckering, 1989, p. 807).

Consequently, maternal depression (Dawson et al., 1994; Egeland et al., 1990; Fergusson

et al., 1995; Frick et al., 1992; Zahn-Waxler, Iannotti, Cummings, & Denham, 1990), or

poor mental health (Pavuluri et al., 1995), features commonly in the literature on child

behaviour problems. Marital depression often accompanies family stress (Milgrom, 1994;

Shaw et al., 1994), marital discord (Fergusson et al., 1995), isolation (Slee & Cross, 1990),

and low income (Alpern & Lyons-Ruth, 1993). Findings suggest that depression may

cause the mother to be negatively demanding of her child (Campbell, Breaux, Ewing, &

Szumowski, 1986; Kuhns & Marcus, 1992), or could lead to her inappropriate use of the

child as a source of comfort as well as diminish her sensitivity to a child’s cues and needs

(Rutter, 1990).

It has also been suggested that the mother’s diminished sensitivity to the child’s needs

during the neonatal stage could result in the baby suffering malnutrition, deprivation of

48

stimulation or even affection, which could lead to brain damage (Moffitt, 1993). Findings in

relation to mothers of toddlers and preschool-age children suggest that low maternal

involvement with their child, such as failing to engage in play, may be an important factor

in the development of behaviour problems (Gardner, 1994; MacDonald, 1987).

The impact on children of maternal depression has been associated with externalising

behaviour in boys and internalising behaviours in girls, described as typical for behaviour

patterns of clinically-referred children (Cuccaro, Holmes, & Wright, 1993). On the other

hand, investigations of different effects on children have suggested that maternal

depression has a greater impact on boys (Cohen & Bromet, 1992; Frick et al., 1992; Shaw

et al., 1994), than girls (Ricks, 1985; Sharp et al., 1995; Stormont-Spurgin & Zentall,

1995). However, claims for differential effect on boys and girls have been seen to be

confounded by the frequent failure of studies to separate the impact of the mother’s

condition from other adverse family characteristics and demographic factors (Fergusson et

al., 1995). In addition, few studies provide any direct link between the behaviour of

depressed mothers and problem behaviour exhibited by their children.

Among the exceptions were Brody and Forehand (1986) and Conrad and Hammen (1989)

who suggested that depressed women may be less tolerant of their children and use

coercive strategies, providing children with a model of interactions that they transpose to

other situations. Field, Healy, Goldstein and Guthertz (1990) took a similar view in

examining behaviour-state matching of depressed mothers and their infants. Among other

actions, they observed depressed mothers poking their infants in anger and the infants’

reactions. The influences of both physical and coercive family interaction on the

manifestation of problematic child behaviours have been well documented and are

discussed further in the current chapter. However, Radke-Yarrow et al. (1995) noted the

importance of considering interactional and dispositional characteristics of the child,

observing that “…the child’s style of coping with the mother’s functioning establish patterns

of behavior that influence the child’s vulnerability to later problems” (p. 247).

2.2.2.5 Low socio-economic status

Membership of a low socio-economic status (SES) group has traditionally been allocated

on the basis of a number of family factors, including parental occupation, race, education

level, marital status, and age (Alpern & Lyons-Ruth, 1993; Campbell, Breaux, Ewing, &

Szumowski, 1986; Hauser-Cram, Bronson, & Upshur, 1993). However, it has been noted

that social status is sometimes confounded with other factors, such as paternal absence,

spacing of children, and domestic crowding (Bradley & Caldwell, 1984).

49

Being a member of a low SES group has been seen as correlated to a range of negative

outcomes for children. Amongst others, these include child behaviours described as

aggressive (Alpern & Lyons-Ruth, 1993; Glazer, 1992; Strassberg et al., 1994; Zoccolillo,

1993); non-compliant (Campbell, Breaux, Ewing, & Szumowski, 1986); more competitive

(McKee & Leader, 1955); exhibiting early-onset conduct problems (Dodge, Pettit, & Bates,

1994); and lower persistence (Sanson et al., 1994). The connection between low SES

and child behaviour problems appears based on a concept of the child learning particular

behaviours thought to be more prevalent in low SES families. For example, Strassberg et

al. (1994) noted that low SES parents were likely to use “...physically coercive disciplinary

strategies” (p. 448), which children would learn as a power-assertive tactic and use them

with peers and other adults.

On the other hand, a New Zealand prevalence study of children with behaviour problems

concluded that, in itself, “socio-economic status was not a significant correlate with

behaviour disorder...” (Pavuluri et al., 1995, p. 461). The investigators found, instead, that

poor family functioning, poor maternal mental health (maternal depression), and marital

discord, were more accurate correlates of child behaviour problems.

2.2.2.6 Discipline

For more than 40 years, researchers have suggested a link between physical punishment

and aggression (e.g., Parke & Slaby, 1983; Skinner, 1953), particularly between

punishment received at home and aggression expressed at school (Spivack, Marcus, &

Swift, 1986). It has also been noted, however, that the effect of punishment may be

mitigated by a number of factors (Strassberg et al., 1994), including the normal

relationship between the punisher and the punished (Hinde, 1992). Although, as

previously mentioned, the use of physical punishment was found to be more prevalent

among low SES parents (Strassberg et al., 1994), the more important characteristic of an

aggressive child had earlier been identified as aggressive family members, regardless of

social class or number of parents (Horne, 1981).

The concept of bi-directionally aggressive behaviour between parents and child has also

been investigated, with findings suggesting that aggressive children are active agents

(Snyder et al., 1994), who may elicit physical punishment as “...a means of obtaining

predictable (albeit aversive) social feedback” (Wahler, 1990, p. 703). It is thought that the

interaction may also become cyclical in the presence or perceived presence of extreme

child behaviours, such as child hyperactivity or impulsivity, particularly if accompanied by

defiant and oppositional behaviours. These types of behaviours have been seen to

50

increase parent frustration, which raises the chances of aversive reaction by the parent,

which in turn heightens the risk of accelerating the development of more anti-social child

behaviour (Hinshaw, Lahey, & Hart, 1993; Lytton, 1990a).

On the other hand, non-existent, poor, or inconsistent discipline has been linked to

inadequate functioning of the child’s behavioural inhibition system (Goodenough, 1931;

Patterson, 1982; Quay, 1993; Reid, 1993). A lack of control may lead to the development

of possible long-term behaviour problems (Susman, 1993). Similar to other aversive

situations, however, child reactions to harsh discipline strategies has been seen to be

mediated by temperament (Zoccolillo, 1993).

2.2.2.7 Learned behaviours

In addition to learning from family members (Cummings et al., 1985; Dodge et al., 1994;

Lefkowitz et al., 1977), findings from a range of studies have consistently associated

displays of aggression in young children with their witnessing violence from a variety of

sources. These include the socio-cultural influences of television (Bandura, 1992;

Bronfenbrenner, 1979; Cummings et al., 1985; Dodge et al., 1994; Huesmann, Lagersptz,

& Eron, 1984; Lipkovitz-Susser, 1994), including that which is portrayed in cartoons

(Sanson & Di Muccio, 1993; Watkins & Durant, 1992), and even displayed in professional

sports (Coie & Jacobs, 1993).

At least three developmental pathways have been suggested for this occurring. First,

parents who condone violence may lead the child to believe that violence is acceptable

(Sanson & Di Muccio, 1993). Second, television violence may emotionally desensitise

children, making them more likely to be aggressive (Coie & Jacobs, 1993). Third, the use

of aggressive behaviour results from viewing violence as a successful method of achieving

goals (Crick, 1995). As with other theories on the development of problem behaviour,

however, it has been noted that the “...effect is not uniform across all children and all

situations…” (Sanson & Di Muccio, 1993, p. 93).

2.2.2.8 Health & medical

Illness and hunger have long been recognised as short-term factors influencing children’s

interactions at all levels (Goodenough, 1931; Kantor, 1959). Over the past two decades,

there have also been an increasing number of investigations into a variety of

psychopharmacological (e.g., Shellshear, 1988; Susman, 1993), psychophysiological

(e.g., Evans & Lepore, 1993; Quay, 1993; Zahn-Waxler, Cole, Welsh, & Fox, 1995), and

neurochemical assaults on young children (e.g., Gratz & Boulton, 1993; Sciarillo,

51

Alexander, & Farrell, 1992). Two of the most prevalent areas of study have been those

concerned with toxicity: the first involving lead and the other involving food additives. A

small number of studies have also examined the effect of sugar intake on the behaviour of

young children.

2.2.2.9 Lead toxicity

For some time, lead absorption has been implicated in abnormalities and malfunction in

children’s development. Specific areas of concern include the poor development of

language-linguistic and spatial factors (Shaheen, 1984), hyperactivity (David, Hoffman,

Sverd, & Clark, 1977), poor intellectual functioning (Baghurst et al., 1992; Karamoskos,

1981), and neuropsychological problems as well as cognitive impairments and behaviour

problems (Kimball, 1994; McCabe, 1991; Thomson et al., 1989). In particular it has been

found that children exposed to lead toxicity exhibit “...decreased attention span, irritability,

lethargy, aggressiveness, destructiveness, withdrawal and sleep problems” (Beattie, 1993,

p. 17).

2.2.2.10 Food additives

Apart from dietry deficiencies, there have been long-standing concerns about the effects of

food additives on children’s behaviour. Feingold’s (1975) claims of successfully

extinguishing many child behaviour problems by eliminating a range of food additives from

children’s diets generated considerable debate about behavioural reactions to certain

foods. Much of this debate has been to dispute the efficacy of Feingold’s K-P diet (e.g.,

Kavale & Forness, 1983; Krummel, Seligson, & Guthrie, 1996; Mattes, 1983;

Pescara-Kovach & Alexander, 1994), although supporters have also been on hand, both

to support Feingold and to criticise the methodology of opposing research (e.g., Holborow,

Elkins, & Berry, 1981; O’Shea & Porter, 1981; Rimland, 1983). To date, neither side has

managed to present sufficient evidence to conclude the debate one way or the other

(Wolraich, 1998).

On the other hand, it has been acknowledged that as a result of implementing a special

diet, the child received more parental attention (Mattes, 1983). Findings also indicate that

the mother developed a more positive perception of her child, which improved mother-

child interactions (Endler, 1981; Lancaster, Prior, & Adler, 1989).

A separate study into hyperkinetic syndrome found a connection with “...foods, food colors,

and inhalant allergens” (O’Shea & Porter, 1981, p. 191). However, the investigators also

implicated setting and situational factors with the finding that children behaved differently

52

at home compared to school. Another study in the same year acknowledged that

individual children may vary in their sensitivity to food additives, and “where a

hypersensitivity exists, very little additive may produce an extreme response” (Holborow,

Elkins, & Berry, 1981, p. 146).

This finding followed a previous investigation to determine causes for the variability in diet

outcomes that found “there was a significantly higher level of copper in the children who

were reported to respond to the restricted diet compared to those children who apparently

had no response” (Brenner, 1979, p. 944). Although the study did not identify the source

of the higher copper levels, it was noted that copper could inhibit the enzyme

5-hydroxytryptophane decarboxylase, which could then interfere with the production of

serotonin (Brenner, 1979). Decreased blood serotonin concentration has been associated

with hyperactivity and other child behaviour problems (Cicchetti & Richters, 1993;

Coleman, 1971).

Thus, researchers to date have failed to generalise any specific behavioural effects of food

ingestion that is not confounded by individual sensitivities, comorbidity with other chemical

imbalances, or situational specificy.

2.2.2.11 Sugar

A similar situation exists for studies into the effects of sugar consumption which, in the

main, have found little correlation with the manifestation of child behaviour problems in

preschool-age children (e.g., Goldman, Lerman, Contois, & Udall, 1986; Krummel et al.,

1996; Rosén et al., 1988).

2.2.3 Nature, nurture, and child development

Issues of gender, ordinal birth position, and maturation may be ordered by nature but, as

evidenced by the literature in the following section, associated behaviours may be subject

to both nurture and the expectations of others.

2.2.3.1 Gender

The current investigation focused on person:environment relationships. According to one

long-standing psychological view, however, “persons do not exist; there are only male

persons and female persons - biologically, sociologically, and psychologically” (Colley,

1959, p. 165). In a more recent review of gender specific behaviours, Moir and Jessel

(1991) presented a case for cerebral differences between the sexes in their book

Brainsex. The authors generally ascribe more sedate social aptitudes to females and

53

more spatial activity to males, although only a little over 1 of the 228 pages focuses on the

preschool period. As such, it reflects the paucity of strong or unambiguous evidence for

the significance of gender in relation to a range of child problem behaviours, at least up to

the age of five years.

For some time, however, persistent research effort has been directed towards establishing

categories of gender-related behavioural characteristics. Commonly, findings depict boys

as more physically aggressive, noisier, and active than girls (e.g., Bandura, 1973;

Charlesworth & Dzur, 1987; Hartup, 1974; Hinde et al., 1983; Ochiltree & Edgar, 1995;

Rutter, Tizard, & Whitmore, 1979; Zahn-Waxler, 1993). Other investigators have found

variations in aggressive behaviour, such as bullying, likely to be much more normal in

boys’ than in girls’ behaviour repertoires (Strassberg et al., 1994; Zoccolillo, 1993).

Notwithstanding the difficulties surrounding research into children’s aggression, partly

discussed in Chapter One, further review of studies in this area helps illustrate gender-

based anomalies in some findings.

In the early 1990s, research evidence for children’s aggression was questioned on the

basis that the focus on physical aspects of aggression had greatly biased aggression

research towards a male perspective (Björkqvist & Niemelä, 1992). It has been noted that

girls have been stereotyped as being more verbally aggressive than boys (Rutter et al.,

1979; Saifer, 1993), and more likely to use a relational oriented form of aggression (Crick,

1995). “Relational aggression”, sometimes called “indirect aggression” (Björkqvist et al.,

1992), typically incorporates behaviours that are intended to interfere with the friendships

of the victim, or their inclusion in the peer group (Crick & Grotpeter, 1995). Because

relational aggression is verbal rather than physical, and is often executed through

whispers as opposed to hits or kicks, it does not immediately appear as a behaviour

problem. As a consequence, relational aggression and its perpetrators are less likely to

be noticed.

The victim’s distress at losing a friend or being excluded from a group may provide the

only indication of relational aggression at work. It has been shown, however, that a

teacher’s view of a child’s emotional displays can be governed by his or her beliefs about

the child’s temperament (Kean, 1997), lessening the likelihood that he or she would

recognise distress as a consequence of relational aggression. In any case, it has been

observed that teachers typically respond to behaviour problems in girls with nurturance

rather than discipline (Minuchin & Shapiro, 1983), and this may well have little impact on

preventing recurrences of causes of the distress. Apart from prolonging the effects of

54

victimisation, it has been suggested that a distressed child “...could monopolize a member

of staff’s attention for some time, and a constant ‘shadow’ could have considerable

nuisance value” (Neill & Denham, 1982, p. 110). Under these circumstances, it could

easily be the victim who gains the reputation as a behaviour problem.

Further insight into gender bias in the evaluation of aggression can be gained by

considering the assigning of motivation for aggression. For example, aggression that

focussed on an object, either as a target or directed towards obtaining or retaining

possession of it, and where injury to another person appears to be a secondary goal, has

been termed “instrumental” (Berkowitz, 1993; Hegland & Rix, 1990; Howes et al., 1994).

The importance of functionally defining types of aggression, such as instrumental, is that

gender differences tend to be less marked when such attributes are considered. In a

study of 102 children, comprising 56 boys and 46 girls, in six classrooms, for example,

hostile aggression was attributed to boys but “...no significant sex difference was obtained

in the rate of occurrence of instrumental aggression” (Hartup, 1974, p. 340).

The age at which this pattern is established is also disputed. Maccoby and Jacklin (1980)

claimed that “...the case for greater male aggression in children aged 6 or younger has

been established beyond reasonable doubt” (p. 967). Putting a limit on how much

younger, Tieger (1980) asserted that “...the pattern of existing evidence suggests that the

gender-dismorphic nature of aggression is reliably observable in children’s spontaneous

behavior only after the age of 5 years” (p. 943). Supporting the assertion, a review of eight

studies concluded that serious problems are no more common in boys than girls until after

five years of age (Rutter & Garmezy, 1983), and even when differences were observed,

they were found to be not statistically significant (Hinde et al., 1983). In contrast, a later

longitudinal study of children from infancy to age eight years, in 300 families, found

differences between boys and girls after toddlerhood. In particular, boys increasingly

became more uncooperative, noncompliant, and aggressive compared to girls of the same

age (Sanson, Prior et al., 1993). On the other hand, studies since the 1930s have found

that differences in levels of expressed anger and aggression among members of the same

gender exceeded the average difference between the genders (e.g., Goodenough, 1931;

Hyde, 1984).

Other studies suggest that the behaviour of children under the age of five years may be

evaluated differently on the basis of the observer’s beliefs about the child’s gender (e.g.,

Fagot, 1978; Frisch, 1977; Goldstein, 1992; Gurwitz & Dodge, 1975; Smith & Lloyd, 1978).

In particular, studies of adult expectations for gender specific emotionality in young

55

children has shown the same behaviour defined as anger when the displaying child was

believed to be male, was judged to be fear when the child was believed to be female

(Condry & Condry, 1976). Similarly, another study involving children of ambiguous gender

in a film, found that for the viewers “…the gender of the actors significantly influences both

the connotative and affective meaning of an event” (Condry & Ross, 1985, p. 230).

The findings confirm the existence of adult expectations for children’s likely behaviour

based on gender, and further suggest that these expectations may turn into self-fulfilling

prophecies (Adams & Crane, 1980). For example, it has been observed that aggression

in boys is differentially reinforced or sanctioned by a wide range of environmental

influences (Sanson, Prior, et al., 1993). As a consequence, boys are recognised as being

more active and noisy (Biddulph, 1997). According to Ebbeck (1986), it follows that “...if

boys are perceived as boisterous, physically active, noisy, demanding, and so on, then not

unexpectedly they may behave this way” (p. 48). At the same time, it has been found that

high activity levels have been associated with increased adult perceptions of behaviour

problems (Crowther et al., 1981).

2.2.3.2 Birth order and siblings

Matters concerning birth order and sibling influence on the propensity for child behaviour

problems have also been the subjects of some study, with inconsistent findings. Dreikurs,

Grunwald, and Pepper (1998), for example, claimed particular characteristics for children

as a result of experience within families associated with birth order. In particular they

suggest that the only child may try and elicit sympathy from adults “...by being shy, timid,

or helpless”, is “...often pampered....may become self-centred....may feel insecure....may

have difficulty in relating to his peers....usually accepts the values of his parents....is often

conservative and serious” (p. 58). Although contending that “...these points apply in most

situations...”, the authors temper their predictions by stating that they “...would like to

emphasize that these characteristics may not always apply” (Dreikurs et al., 1998, p. 63),

citing a range of parenting practices and family values as mediating factors. It is

noteworthy that few studies of children in adverse family condition, such as those

discussed earlier, mention ordinal position of children as mediating factors in the

presentation of problem behaviour.

Other studies correlating a child’s birth order with specific types of behaviours invariably

hypothesise the influences of parents’ interaction with a particular birth order child, rather

than birth order per se. The form of these interactions may reflect parental concern

derived from inexperience of parenthood and/or lack of knowledge about developmental

56

norms. For example, comparing the behaviour checklist rating of parents who had

different numbers of children, one study found that parents of only one child indicated

significantly more concern about behaviour management than parents of more than one

child (Stallard, 1993).

Researchers have also found that parents with more than one child demonstrate different

behaviour towards older and younger siblings. For example, Baskett (1984) observed that

the eldest child was likely to receive more negative responses, from both parents and

siblings, than was a younger child displaying the same behaviours. Earlier work had found

that eldest children with a male sibling two to four years younger were less obedient, less

friendly, and generally less responsive to adult approval (Koch, 1955). In contrast, another

investigation found that it was second born children, particularly when there was also a

younger sibling, who were more likely to develop behaviour problems, thought to emanate

from a lack of parental attention and resultant insecurities (Lewis, Feiring, McGuffog, &

Jaskir, 1984).

Gender implications were suggested in a study that found birth order differences applied

only to problem behaviours among male children. However, the investigators included

only two child families in their study and stated that they could not determine whether the

behaviours were biologically or environmental related (Lahey, Hammer, Crumrine, &

Forehand, 1980). An earlier study of leadership styles amongst nursery school children

found that first born females were more-task oriented and later born females more

relation-oriented, but found no difference between males related to birth order (Hardy,

Hunt, & Lehr, 1978).

Other investigations have examined children’s responses to changes in the social

environment as a result of the birth of a sibling (e.g., Zajonc, Markus, & Markus, 1979),

and to differences in the way parents interact with them, particularly in relation to siblings.

Stocker (1995), for example, found that both mothers and fathers treat siblings differently,

and that young children noticed discrepancies. Several studies have reported that

children who believed they received less favourable treatment from their parents,

compared to siblings, were likely to exhibit more problem behaviours (Dunn & McGuire,

1992; Dunn & Munn, 1986; McGuire, Dunn, & Plomin, 1995). Conversely, other

researchers have suggested that these reactions and subsequent behaviours are part of

normal relationship between siblings throughout childhood (Martin & Ross, 1996).

Of particular relevance to the current study, Lieberman (1977) found that birth order was

57

not a significant factor in the peer-group social behaviour of preschool boys. Similarly, in a

cross-cultural study involving three countries, birth order and number of siblings were

found to have only limited correlation with deviant behaviours (Matsuura et al., 1993). A

study by Campbell, Breaux, Ewing, and Szumowski, (1986), however, found that the

presence of more children in a family contributed to higher initial aggression ratings by

parents.

In contrast to the studies of social behaviours, two linked studies carried out in America,

found birth order differences in motor activity levels. Surveying adults in relation to more

than 7000 children over a seven-year period, investigators found that motor activity was

perceived by respondents to decline linearly from the first to later born children. In a

second study, of 81 children attending child care centres, teachers rated eldest children as

significantly more active than younger siblings (Eaton, Chipperfield, & Singbeil, 1989).

The findings may assume some relevance in the light of the suggestions by Crowther et al.

(1981) and Fagot and O’Brien (1994) that there was an increased chance of a child with a

high activity level being perceived by teachers as aggressive or hyperactive.

Overall, however, the evidence for any effect of ordinal birth position alone on the

manifestation of child behaviour problems is far from conclusive. It is apparent that other

family demographic characteristics, family values and social functioning, as well as gender

and age specific expectations of adults, combine to confound any generalisation of

propensities for problematic behaviours exhibited by an older, middle or younger child.

2.2.3.3 Maturation

Just as gender has been seen by some as a rationale for accepting or rejecting certain

behaviours, lower levels of maturation have been cited as a rationale for accepting the age

of preschoolers as mediation for behaviours that may not be countenanced in an older

child (Egeland et al., 1990; Kazdin, 1993). Specifically, high activity levels (Routh,

Schroeder, & O’Tuama, 1974) and a degree of aggression and non-compliance (Pettit,

Bakshi, Dodge, & Coie, 1990; Saifer, 1993; Snyder et al., 1994; Stormont-Spurgin &

Zentall, 1995; Zoccolillo, 1993), have been suggested as normal behaviour for this age

group. Similarly, many behaviour problems are expected as a result of the weak but

maturing emotional regulating processes (Cicchetti et al., 1995). Even the early stages of

relatively serious problem behaviours have been viewed as difficult to separate from the

turmoil of normal preschool-age development (Campbell, 1995; Hartup, 1974; Ledingham,

1981; Susman, 1993). For example, the symptoms for some specific problems, such as

ADD, are said by some not to emerge clearly until children are aged six to nine years

58

(Marakovitz & Campbell, 1998).

Complicating the picture is the domination of early childhood care and education services

by maturational approaches to child development. The writings of Rousseau and the

theories of Freud, Erikson, Gesell, Piaget, and Rogers have reinforced the idea of stages

of development, through which children pass at particular ages. The acceptance of the

consistency of these stages by many practitioners and others, and the expected

consistency of the child moving through them, has led to the use of behaviour problem

descriptors such as “immaturity” and “developmental delay”. For some time, however,

inconsistencies in rates of maturation beyond the normally accepted levels have been

noted between children, as well as unevenness across areas of development in the same

child (e.g., Biggs & Collis, 1991; Collis & Biggs, 1991; Hutt, 1972). These observations

have led to the “ages and stages” approach to child development being challenged on a

number of social and cultural grounds (e.g., Alloway, 1997; Donaldson, 1978; Jipson,

1991), particularly in relation to school readiness where one investigator specified “...a lack

of success in trying to utilize a psychological view...” (Graue, 1992, p. 66). Despite

evidence to the contrary, however, age alone still appears to exert considerable influence

on the evaluation of young children’s behaviour.

In addition, the physical appearance of the child may also play a role in influencing adult

expectations about behaviour, particularly in determination of problem behaviour.

Specifically, it has been suggested that the

...cranial/facial proportion is a particularly salient abstract specification for age level and may be used without awareness in caregiving decisions. This may lead to caregivers’ unrealistic expectations of youngsters who appear atypically older than their chronological age. (McCabe, 1984, p. 267)

The difficulties may be compounded by the traditional preschool and child care centre

practices of grouping 20-24 children, between the ages of 3-5 years, together in one

group. For example, Charlton, Leo, Evans, and Flagg (1994) suggested that wide age

variations could lead to unfavourable, and misleading, comparisons of the behaviour of

younger to that of older or more mature children in the same group.

2.2.4 Summary

Putting aside differences and ambiguities in attributes ascribed to individual children and

various child-nurturing situations, much of the literature reviewed above suggests that

within-child characteristics, prenatal injury, prematurity, and childrearing practices that

impact on brain development or stimulate learning, may result in a propensity for some

59

children to exhibit certain types of problem behaviours. At the same time, it has been

suggested that the child’s gender, birth order, age, and the demographic status of his or

her family may create expectations in other adults for the child to exhibit certain types,

styles or levels of problem behaviour. While innate and learned behaviours, biological

impairments and the expectations of others may contribute to the psychological habitat of

the child, no studies indicate that a child will be problematic in any specific situation or

explain why he or she may be a problem in one but not another. Apart from speculating

that other within-child or environmental factors may play a role, little evidence is provided

to explain why some children develop behaviour problems as a result of their nature or

nurture while others with similar characteristics and experiences do not.

Exceptions are those few studies that have identified within-child protective factors that

may shield children from long-term consequences of adversity (e.g., Fergusson et al.,

1994a; Mathias, Mertin, & Murray, 1995). These factors may manifest as high vagal tone

(Field et al., 1995; Fox & Field, 1989), or high levels of serotonin metabolite and

5-hydroxyindoleacetic acid (Cicchetti & Richters, 1993; Gottman & Katz, 1989; Greenberg

et al., 1993; Katz & Gottman, 1995), among other biological attributes. At the same time,

particular facets of the environment have also been suggested as having the capacity to

mitigate the effects of adversity and reduce the likely manifestation of problem behaviours.

These include the presence of siblings, friends, or a stable peer group (e.g., Cummings &

Smith, 1993; Dodge et al., 1994; El-Sheikh, Cummings, & Goetsch, 1989), although how

these factors mitigate the impact of adversity is rarely explained.

It must be concluded, therefore, that attempting to use characteristics of a child’s nature or

nurture to identify him or her as being at greater risk of exhibiting problem behaviours than

other children in a group, has limited value for the current study. While the literature

indicates the likelihood that individual children will bring to the centre the potential for a

unique range of behaviours that could be exhibited with varying intensity, there is little

evidence that those behaviours will be consistent or patterned across situations located

differently in time and space. Nor is there evidence to suggest that any environmental

influences implicated in triggering those behaviours will differ substantially in effect

between children. On the contrary, the conclusion from a variety of sources concerned

with the effects of out-of-home care, reviewed in the following section, suggests that the

environment of a child care centre is a consistent and dominant influence on the

manifestation of all problematic child behaviours.

60

2.3 Children’s problem behaviour and child care centres

As a structure for presenting a review of the literature in this section, most of the findings

have been arranged under the titles representing the physical, social, structural, and

cultural components of environment specified for the current study. It is reiterated,

however, that the headings are no more than organisational devices as each component

is seen to function in relation to the others and, in some cases, are almost impossible to

separate. In addition, the four headings are preceded by a review of investigations that

have claimed general problematic child behaviours result from children attending child

care centres, and others that have found behavioural consequences of specific patterns or

histories of enrolment in child care.

2.3.1 Child care centres as a source of influence on child development

Attending child care centres can, according to individual opinions, reports in the media,

and the conclusions of some studies, shape both the development and behaviour of young

children. The common feature of many claims is that the effects are general to most

children and are retained into the school years. At the same time, few accounts

discriminate between different centres or specify any particular facet of the centre’s

environments that may influence the children. In most cases the child care centre is

represented as a concept rather than a concrete entity.

For example, in a story printed by a major Australian daily newspaper (Loane, 1996), an

unidentified schoolteacher was quoted as stating “You can always pick a child who has

been to child care....They are often uncooperative, aggressive and secretive,...” (p. 31). In

the previous year, an Australian magazine article had quoted the Professor of Sociology at

Boston University as saying that “early childcare does have an effect on children’s

behaviour....the centre for childcare studies at the University of Pennsylvania has shown

they’re much more rambunctious, easily excitable” (Duffy, 1995, p. 40). Similarly, in an

investigation by the Australian Institute of Family Studies, it was observed that boys who

had attended group care were more “bratty”, competitive, “classroom-wise”, less

conforming, and may be “...more likely to question authority...” (Ochiltree & Edgar, 1995, p.

61). A later commentary from the Centre for Independent Studies asserted that the

“brattishness” of children who attended child care centres was “...noticeable to the casual

observer from the beginning,...” (Sullivan, 1997, p. 25).

The above comments give rise to two observations; the first about research methodology.

For example, the findings reported by the Australian Institute of Family Studies, referred to

above, were derived from a retrospective survey completed by schoolteachers and

61

parents of school-aged children who had received out-of-home care prior to starting

school. Little information was provided about patterns of attendance, characteristics of

individual child care centres involved, or the experiences of the children enrolled in them.

Investigators have long expressed concern about the omission of situational factors in

checklists and rating scales, such as those used in surveys, which may cause evaluations

to be made out of context (e.g., Altepeter & Breen, 1992; Campbell, 1995; Kohn, 1977;

Tisak, Nucci, & Jankowski, 1996). There has also been considerable debate over the

general efficacy of checklists (e.g., Achenbach, Howell, Quay, & Conners, 1991; Behar,

1977; Condon, 1995; Halperin et al., 1995; Hegland & Rix, 1990), and their rating scales

(e.g., Charlesworth et al., 1993; Goyette, Connors, & Ulrich, 1978; Sandoval, 1981). In

addition, it has been noted that findings can be confounded by respondents’ lack of

understanding about child development, particularly in relation to discriminating between

parental concerns and normative problems (e.g., Pavuluri et al., 1995; Stallard, 1993).

At the same time, problems associated with retrospectivity have long been recognised. It

has been contended, for example, that the accuracy of a respondent’s recall is effected by

their cognitive ability (Piaget & Inhelder, 1973), past and present contextual factors (Ricks,

1985), social desirability factors (Hagekull & Bohlin, 1994) and the degree of emotionality

engendered by the questions (Carey, 1982). The threats to accurate data collection

posed by the last two points, in particular, have been well illustrated by the highly emotive

language of ongoing debate in Australian newspapers and magazines about the harm or

otherwise of out-of-home child care in general (e.g., Duffy, 1995; Manne, 1996; McHugh,

1997; Sullivan, 1997).

The second observation about the comments relates to the noticeable lack of discussion

concerning possible alternative explanations for the behaviours. For example, Elliott

(1998) noted the difficulty of predicting the success of children’s adjustment to school,

citing a number of variables unrelated to what the child learned in a child care centre.

Although she found that for children who had attended a child care centre, “…the actual

transition to school was relatively seamless…” (p. 31), she also found that the shift from

the longer hours of child care to the shorter hours of school presented a number of logistic

difficulties for working parents. These included making arrangements for children’s travel

to and from school, and finding suitable after-school care, as well as a number of other

factors associated with parental participation in school activities, all of which needed to be

resolved to ease the child’s transition between child care and school. Elliott concluded

that “…the behind-the-scenes manoeuvring, compromising, and negotiating needed to

62

effect this continuity was exhausting and stressful for parents, particularly mothers” (p. 31).

The relationship between maternal stress and child behaviours has been discussed earlier

in this chapter. If the child is also feeling anxious about school, or the new travel and other

arrangements, then it is likely that behaviour problems may occur. Rarely, however, do

arguments citing child care as a cause of problematic behaviour in schools consider these

additional issues.

As a consequence of the above observations, the findings of many prevalence studies are

not included in this review. In particular, those that retrospectively surveyed respondents

who had no close working knowledge of the situations in which behaviours occurred, are

deemed to have little ecological relevance to the current investigation. Similarly,

interpretations of findings that have simply blamed problem behaviours exhibited in

classrooms exclusively on behaviours supposedly learned in child care centres, rather

than consider the possibility of more complex issues being involved, have limited utility for

the current study.

The treatment of child care centre attendance as a concept, devoid of detail about centre

environments and actual child-experiences, is also a feature of much of the extensive

debate in the literature about infant out-of-home care. Fears for normal infant

development, as consequences of both maternal deprivation and the failure of child-parent

bonding, were debated by researchers internationally throughout the 1980s and 1990s

(e.g., Belsky, 1988; Clarke-Stewart, 1988; Crockenberg & Litman, 1991; Hagekull &

Bohlin, 1995; Hennessy et al., 1992; Rothbaum, Rosen, Pott, & Beatty, 1995; Thompson,

1988). It was also suggested that there was a possibility of out-of-home child care

weakening the attachment bond, not just between the child and his or her parent(s), but

also between the parent and his or her child (Zigler & Turner, 1982).

Prior to these later concerns about damage to families, wider behavioural effects of child

care enrolment on the development of young children was also investigated overseas,

with mixed positive and negative results (e.g., Belsky & Steinberg, 1978; Gifford, 1978;

Heinicke, Friedman, Prescott, Puncel, & Sale, 1973; Rutter, 1982). Comparisons

continued to be made between the development and behaviour of children reared at home

and those attending child care centres, with contradictory findings. A number of

investigators have reported children in child care as more aggressive and less co-

operative with adults (e.g., Bronfenbrenner, 1979; Crockenberg & Litman, 1991;

Robertson, 1982; Schindler, Moely, & Frank, 1987; Thornburg, Pearl, Crompton, & Ispa,

1990). Others have reported finding no evidence associating child care with aberrant child

63

behaviour (e.g., Sternberg et al, 1991) and no evidence that good quality child care harms

children (Ochiltree, 1994; Sroufe, 1998). At the same time, studies have also suggested

benefits for some children attending centres (e.g., Field, Masi, Goldstein, Perry, & Parl,

(1988; Fergusson, Horwood, & Lynskey, 1994b; Greenblat & Ochiltree, 1993; Hagekull &

Bohlin, 1995; Hennessy et al., 1992; Phillips, McCartney, & Scarr, 1987; Podmore, 1993;

Scarr, 1998).

A number of investigators have been critical of the research methodologies used in many

of the above studies (e.g., Caruso & Corsini, 1994; Howes, 1988; Leach, 1994; McGuire &

Richman, 1986; Sternberg et al., 1991), particularly in relation to data collection methods.

In most cases, studies relating to the effect of child care centres on the behaviour of

children have taken a global or group approach, without considering the mechanisms of

child:environment relationships, or individual differences in either children or centres. In

addition, it has long been contended that other external environmental factors, such as

maternal motivation for using child care, including family characteristics and economic

circumstances, may be a confounding variable in separating child care centre effect on

child behaviours from other influences (Schwarz, Strickland, & Krolick, 1974; Vlietstra,

1981). As a result, these investigations have contributed little to the identification of

environmental influences on the occurrences of problem behaviours of children attending

individual child care centres.

2.3.1.1 Length of attendance

Length of time children have attended child care has been considered a variable by some

investigators of problem behaviours in young children (e.g., Derscheid, 1997; Podmore,

1993; Schindler et al., 1987). The underlying assumption appears to be that boredom, or

a lack of stimulation, could become an issue after the child had been attending the same

centre for several years (Clarke & Gray, 1997; Schuster et al., 1980). In most cases,

observations of boredom in children have been related to inactivity or limited choices of

equipment and materials over a short period within a single day (e.g., Christie, Johnsen, &

Peckover, 1988; Davidson, 1980; Gruss, et al., 1998; Smith & Connolly, 1980; Walsh,

1997). However, no studies were found that have attempted to quantify boredom over

time and settings, or provide evidence that boredom or a lack of stimulation alone are a

continuing factor in the production of child behaviour problems.

In addition, investigations incorporating length of attendance have rarely considered the

totality of variations in the quality of that experience. Components of attendance have

been recognised as including the duration of the child’s day (Holloway, 1991; Kennedy,

64

1991; Stephen, 1993), the program of activities (Fox, 1990; Gruss et al., 1998; Hennessy

et al., 1992), quantity and quality of staff interactions (Azar & Tansey, 1995; Dunn, 1993;

Hestenes, Kontos, & Bryan, 1993; Leach, 1994), and peer group relationships

(Campos-de-Carvalho & Rossette-Ferreira, 1993; Dodge et al., 1994; Hartup & Laursen,

1993). Any one of these points could confound any speculative attributes of mere length

of attendance which, in any case, one Australian Federal Government report found to be

non-significant on its own (Department of Health, Housing, and Community Services,

1992).

In quantifying the child’s experience in child care, previous research has largely failed to

consider the child’s history of out-of-home care beyond the setting in which the study was

conducted. Similarly, investigators have largely failed to address the impact on children of

frequent changes in child care arrangements. Of those studies that have considered

changes, two found that regular changes correlated with lower social-emotional and

cognitive development (Hennessy et al, 1992; Podmore, 1993), while a longitudinal study

of 52 children in Sweden found no effect of changes in care or combined length of

attendance (Hagekull & Bohlin, 1995).

There is little discussion of the possible implications for child behaviour of concurrent

enrolment in different child care settings, including the confusion a child may experience in

adapting to different programs, schedules and staff attitudes. For example, a parent who

concurrently enrolled her child in a preschool for three days per week, and in child care for

the other two days, reportedly did so because she thought her son, who had attended the

child care centre from a very early age, “...wasn’t being challenged enough” (Parents who

choose preschool, 1995, p. 7). The child care centre obviously met some needs of the

parent as enrolment was maintained for two days, requiring the young child to adapt to the

structure and culture of both institutions, in addition to his home, on a regular basis.

Whether the arrangements had any impact on the child’s behaviour was not reported and

the author found no studies of the phenomenon.

2.3.2 Physical environment

As mentioned earlier, the influence of the physical environment on child behaviours has

long been acknowledged (e.g., Barker, 1963b; Body, 1955; Gump et al., 1963; Hartup,

1983; Isaacs, 1933; Lewin, 1935; Walling, 1977). Studies have investigated a range of

possible outcomes, including “...positive social interaction, productive play, conflict, or

aggression” (Minuchin & Shapiro, 1983, p. 203). Yet, by 1987, Moore, a developmental

65

and environmental psychologist and, at that time, Professor of Architecture at the

University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, observed “...we know more about the global effects of

day care than we do about their causes and almost nothing about the causes that may or

may not be attributable to the designed physical environment” (Moore, 1987, p. 44).

A number of researchers have investigated the influence of spaces, places, and objects,

on child behaviour (e.g., Pellegrini & Perlmutter, 1989; Proshansky & Fabian, 1987; Wolfe

& Rivlin, 1987; Wyver & Spence, 1995), and particularly in relation to problem child

behaviours (e.g., Koralek et al., 1993; Neill & Denham, 1982; Saifer, 1993). Findings have

pointed to a variety of physical features of child care centres that appear to influence child

behaviour. Amongst the more salient of the claims have been those related to the design

of buildings, the organisation of internal spaces, types of room lighting, sound and noise

levels, and matters of physical and psychological comfort associated with soft furnishings,

cosy corners, and private space. In addition to these predominantly interior features, the

function and form of outside play areas have also received attention. The following

provide a summary of research findings and educators’ comments in each of these areas.

2.3.2.1 The design of child care centres

There are long-standing claims, particularly from architects and urban planners, as well as

educators, that the man-made physical environment communicates meaning, thereby

influencing the behaviour of users (e.g., Parsons, 1974; Rapoport, 1982; Sommer, 1969;

Stebbins, 1973; Wolfe & Rivlin, 1987). For example, Sebastian (1988) observed that

“most people have had experiences where feelings and behaviour have altered in

response to the environment, such as upon entering a library or a cathedral, or being in

the midst of the congestion of a department store sale” (p. 33).

Despite the claims and experiences, a search of the literature reveals little investigation of

the influence of child care centre design on children’s behaviours, in Australia or

elsewhere. In America, Moore (1987) observed that the physical environments of child

care centres were “...that part of the total environment that environmental professionals

(architects, planners, and policy makers) are manipulating with little understanding of

human developmental consequences and scant scientific evidence on which to base

design decisions” (p. 46).

His comments followed one of the few systematic examinations of settings and the

subsequent situations that settings could influence in child care centres. Directed at

examining the impact of a range of indoor and outdoor architectural and design issues on

66

child behaviours, data was collected on situations in designated settings across 14 centres

representing a spectrum of educational philosophies and socio-economic factors. After a

month of observations, findings included the contention that spatial definitions of settings

were an important factor influencing child behaviours, and there was clearly interaction

between physical and social aspects of the environment (Moore, 1986).

Moore’s multidisciplinary approach to child care centre design, involving both

environmental and developmental psychology as well as architecture and urban planning

propagated one of the few sets of “...design principles based on empirical research on the

relationship between child development and the built environment...”(Moore, 1993, p. 83).

In advocating for developmentally appropriate design of child care facilities, Moore (1994a)

contended that the impact of the physical environment on the child was likely working in

“ecological concert” with curriculum, family structures and systems.

In addition to matters associated with the size of centres (Moore 1996a, 1996b), layout of

child care building (Moore, 1996b), children’s privacy (Moore, 1996c, 1997a), block areas

(Moore, 1997b), and the siting centres within communities (Moore, 1997c), he also called

for a number of playrooms features, including clearly defined activity areas, separated

from each other by permanent or semi-permanent dividers and variation in floor covering

(Moore, 1993). The advocacy was supported by the development of detailed observation

schedules and rating scales for a range of physical and structural factors within the

environments of child care centres (Moore, 1994b).

2.3.2.2 The organisation of internal spaces

Rather than look at the definition of settings, other studies have investigated the effect of

open space. For example, Neill (1982), who was with the Department of Psychology and

Department of Architecture, at the University of Strathclyde, made observations of child

care in Scotland almost two decades ago that could apply equally to centres in Australia

today. He noted that building designs “...have been largely influenced by educational

views which suggest that children should learn by active and spontaneous interaction with

resources...” (p. 309), and usually incorporate large rectangular open plan playrooms with

high ceilings and big windows.

He also reported that staff of these centres believed the open plan facilitated better

supervision (Neill, 1982). The arrangement of classrooms to suit the needs of adults,

particularly in relation to ease of supervision, has also been noted in Australia and

America (e.g., Clarke & Gray, 1997; Cunningham, 1994; Jorde-Bloom, 1988; Meyer, 1997;

67

Mobbs, 1994; Walsh, 1997; Weinstein & David, 1987).

At the same time, a majority of centre staff who Neill interviewed felt that open plan spaces

led to “...increased running, high level motor activity and rough-and-tumble, as such

spaces suggested these activities to children” (Neill & Denham, 1982, p. 108). Other

findings reported by Neill (1982) and Neill and Denham (1982) suggested that open

spaces also provided more opportunity for attack by aggressors, with subsequently

distress for victims. Similar views have been recorded in Australia, with space being

attributed with the ability to encourage “...aggressiveness and those nastier type of

behaviours” (Balcombe & Tansey, 1996, p. 11). These conceptualisations of space

inducing children to act in one way or another reflected Gump’s (1971) definition of

“physiognomic perception”: where open places invite running and enclosed spaces

promote grouping.

Some researchers have examined the guiding and constraining aspects of spatial

arrangement in relation to program structure and planning (e.g., Hartup & Laursen, 1993;

Kritchevsky, Prescott, & Walling, 1977; Parsons, 1974; Shantz, 1975; Soto, Fernandez, &

Cantieri, 1990). The well-planned design of internal and external physical space has also

been linked to better teaching, with more time spent responding to children and fostering

social interaction (Kritchevsky et al., 1977; Moore, 1986; Prescott, 1987). Other

investigations have found an increased potential for accidents if a lack of effective

boundaries allow children involved in one activity to intrude upon children in adjacent

activities (e.g., Greenman, 1988; Prescott, 1997). The need for clear pathways between

well defined activity areas, as an aid to avoiding distractions and disruptions, has been

acknowledged on many occasions (e.g., McCrea & Piscitelli, 1991; Neill, 1982; Prescott,

1994; Sebastian, 1988; Trancik & Evans, 1995; Department of Health, Housing, and

Community Services, 1992; Youcha & Wood, 1997). At the same time, poorly arranged

space has been recognised as a source of tension and frustration among children, with

the potential to precipitate conflict (e.g., Davidson, 1980; Krantz & Risley, 1977; Stephen,

1993; Watkins & Durant, 1992).

2.3.2.3 Social and spatial density

Space itself is, however, relative to the people or objects that occupy it. Over more than

half a century, investigators in America and Britain have studied the behavioural effects on

children of play area crowding, with mixed results. Some studies have suggested that

crowding increases aggression (e.g., Hutt & Vaizey, 1966; Jersild & Markey, 1935; Krantz

& Risley, 1977; Loo, 1972; Mcgrew, 1970), while others have found only some children

68

adversely affected (e.g., Stephen, 1993), and one study has reported increased

cooperative behaviours amongst children under certain conditions (Rohe & Patterson,

1974). Investigators also found variations in children behaviour attributable to differences

in the conditions created by “spatial density”, involving a group of the same number of

children in different size spaces, and “social density”, involving groups of differing numbers

in the same size space.

The variations in findings, particularly in the earlier investigations, have been ascribed to

weaknesses in research methodology, including insufficient interobserver agreement

(Brown, Fox, & Brady, 1987), failure to control for or to measure teacher-child interactions

(Hart & Sheehan, 1986), and failure to measure or control the amount or types of toys and

materials present during experimental conditions (Quilitch & Risley, 1973). Each of these

factors was seen as either mitigating the effects of density or contributing to the behaviour

problems regardless of crowding. More recently, Maxwell (1996) found that detrimental

effects of crowding could be mitigated by the length of time during the day that crowding

had to be endured. In particular, it was concluded that temporal issues were as important

for analysis of influence as were the setting and situations.

Hartup and Laursen (1993) suggested that the children’s culture might also be a significant

factor in determining the levels of disruption caused by crowding. Specifically, they

suggested that there might be culturally learned differences in the way children perceive

spatial or social density. Further, it has been suggested that young children have to learn

the lore and values of their culture (Bandura & Walters, 1959; Hall, 1959; Slaughter-Defoe,

1995), and that until the learning is complete they may not experience the same social

conditioning as adults. Investigators have acknowledged for some time that what is

“crowded” for some children may not be so for others (e.g., Greenman, 1988; Kritchevsky

et al., 1969; Smith & Connolly, 1980). Consequently, it is argued that a perception of

crowding may be a cultural artefact and, if they have not yet been thoroughly conditioned

in cultural mores, young children may not perceive crowding as adults perceive it or expect

children to perceive it.

While incomplete conditioning to the culture may account for some of the variations in

children’s behaviour, the variation in findings could also indicate fundamental differences

in the way children perceive overall situations in addition to the characteristics of crowding.

For example, according to Endler (1981) “crowding is a function of the interactions among

environmental, social, and personal variables” (p. 371). Relatedly, a study of effects of the

physical environment on the behaviour of children in three Vienna kindergartens found that

69

the number of playrooms was a significant factor in the children's perception of space

limitations. In particular, the investigators concluded that for children aged 4-5 years “...the

psychological effect of group size seemed to be more dependent on spatial organization

than on actual numbers or density” (Larson, Greenfield, & Land, 1990, p. 37).

2.3.2.4 Resource scarcity

While a number of investigators found different social and spatial densities influenced the

relationships between children, they also suggested that the occurrence of problem

behaviours could be mediated by increasing resources (e.g., Brown, 1996; Rohe &

Patterson, 1974; Smith & Connolly, 1980). The strategy suggested the possibility of

exerting instrumental control over the behavioural outcomes of grouping, to the extent that

...if the major goal is to increase associative behavior among children, then increasing the density and decreasing the resources is suggested by the data. However, an increase in aggression should also be expected. Alternatively, if cooperative behavior is more important, an increase in density with a concomitant increase in play materials would be suggested. Aggression would still increase, but not to as great an extent. (Rohe & Patterson, 1974, p. 170)

Importantly, the findings from the investigations mentioned above demonstrated that

spatial and social density alone are not determinants of behaviour but could be subject to

the intent of staff through the quantity of resources provided.

Other studies have also associated problem child behaviours with both social and spatial

density relative to the availability of resources. However, it has been suggested that

problems young children have with the concept of sharing may also be involved (e.g.,

Koralek et al., 1993; Stephen, 1993; Watkins & Durant, 1992). In this regard, it has been

recognised that “...some activities are particularly conflict-prone because they involve

shared space and equipment which must be negotiated, and because they create a

sub-group of participants who may exclude other children” (Minuchin & Shapiro, 1983, p.

205).

In a more recent contribution, Brown (1996) suggested that a common demand for one

particular high status toy, even in conditions of other resource abundance, could also

create conflictual situations. That elements within the environment can be construed as

communicating meaning, such as “high status”, has been pursued since at least the mid-

1930s. The result has been to imbue objects with “valences” (Lewin, 1935) or

“affordances” (Gibson, 1979), signifying their attractiveness to children. The intensity of

the attractiveness has been acknowledged to be dependent on the individual child’s needs

at the time (Lewin, 1935).

70

In relation to children in child care centres, Kritchevsky et al. (1977) contended that the

extent of children’s involvement in an activity or interaction with materials and equipment

would depend on how well those activities or objects “...meet their ‘hunger, attitudes and

interests’ ” (p. 5). Moore (1986) observed that attitudes, if not hunger and interest, might

be mediated by the organisation of the setting. Specifically, he noted that well defined

activity areas encouraged cooperative behaviours, whereas less well defined areas

appeared to stimulate competition for resources, although a lack of resources was noted

as a frequent characteristic of poorly defined areas.

2.3.2.5 Resource use

While poorly defined settings allow children at one activity to encroach into adjacent areas

(Prescott, 1997), intrusions have also been found to occur when a child’s use of resources

conflicts with the expectations or intentions of adults, particularly in relation to the space

allocated for it (Trancik & Evans, 1995). Apart from any other reasons, children’s

imagination has been recognised as capable of transforming the attributes of material and

equipment (Pellegrini & Perlmutter, 1989) that, for the child, may legitimise its use outside

the allocated area.

Bronfenbrenner (1979) also called for consideration of the role of children’s fantasies in

perceptions of settings and situations. As Lewin (1935) wrote much earlier “the

description of the child’s environment would be incomplete without including the whole

world of phantasy [sic] which is so important for the child’s behavior and so closely

connected with its ideals and with its ideal goals” (p. 76). In many programs, fantasy has

been recognised as a fundamental component of the child’s milieu, essential for

appropriate child behaviour in a variety of settings, and far from discouraged by adults.

For example “pretend play” has a major role in most early childhood programs, through

“dressing-up” corners, “wendy-houses”, “home” areas, and the like.

In addition, there are a number of society-wide and adult supported fantasies introduced to

children from birth, such as “Father Christmas”. Children have little control over

participation in the plot and “parents often go to great lengths to provide concrete evidence

that Santa is real....In fact, the entire community is involved in the conspiracy...” (Taylor,

1997, p. 1016). Similar adult-inspired fantasies, including the traditional “Easter Bunny”

and “Tooth Fairy”, have more recently been augmented with television promoted super

heroes. The possible influence of the new characters on the way children use resources

has been the subject of a number of studies. Some findings suggest that the frequent

death- and gravity-defying exploits of the latter group have considerable influence on child

71

behaviours (e.g., Culpit, 1989; Dawkins, 1991; Warren, 1996; Wilder, 1996), but perhaps

no greater influence than fantasy in general.

More relevant to every day activities in child care centres, however, may be the role of

fantasy in the child’s ability to transform the attributes of places and objects with his or her

own personal interpretations. As Lewin (1935) pointed out, “a wooden cube may be one

time a missile, again a building block, and a third time a locomotive. What a thing is at any

time depends upon the total situation and the momentary condition of the child involved”

(p. 76).

On the other hand, it is assumed that while staff members may share some culture-wide

perceptions of situations with children, adults would be less likely to include the same

degree of fantasy in their interactions with the environment (Taylor, 1997; Woolley, 1997).

Consequently, an adult’s perception of Lewin’s wooden cube may be substantially less

personal or motivating than the child’s, with the possibility of subsequent differences in

their respective goals and intended location for the activity.

Non-shared fantasy aside, however, the range of child behaviours expected for many

standard types of equipment and toys available within child care centres is well

documented (e.g., Fagot & O’Brien, 1994; Fox, 1990; Hartup & Laursen, 1993; Kounin &

Sherman, 1979; Minuchin & Shapiro, 1983; Parke & Slaby, 1983; Pellegrini, 1984; Rettig,

Kallam, & McCarthy-Salm, 1993). Frequently, these studies report correlations between

the toy use or activity and the child, while other aspects of the environment are rarely

considered in any detail. Consequently, it is not always clear whether the reported

behaviours are solely a result of the toy or influenced by other factors within physical,

social, structural, or cultural components of the centre’s environment.

2.3.2.6 Play places and child behaviours

A number of investigators have identified specific settings as being particularly prone to

creating situations with high frequencies of conflict between children. For example,

Kounin and Sherman (1979) reviewed earlier research and noted that climbing equipment,

home area play, and large block construction were particularly conflict prone. Hartup and

Laursen (1993) also identified block building and home area, and added dramatic play to

the list of activities most susceptible to outbreaks of problem behaviour.

Moore (1997b) assigned the potential for conflict in block play areas to the high level of

activity they engendered, as well as aspects of territoriality and possession of materials.

72

On the other hand, Pellegrini (1984) had earlier observed that problem behaviours were

not always directly associated with the legitimate purpose of the activity area. For

example, he found that older preschool children did not play in the home corner very

frequently, and when they did use the area they were more likely to engage in rough-and-

tumble play.

Responding to a survey on children’s problem behaviours, staff of centres in north

Queensland nominated block and home areas as the second highest sites of conflicts

among children, with the sandpit being judged as the most conflictual (Gruss et al., 1998).

It was noted, however, that the activity was a stronger indicator of anti-social behaviour

than was the physical location, although no explanations was forthcoming to account for

the eruption of problem behaviour as a result of the child:setting interface.

2.3.2.7 Sound and noise levels

Associated with the physical environment, sound has been suggested as one of the

senses of space, with ability to evoke strong physiological and psychological reactions

(Greenman, 1988). In most research, however, sound is equated with loud or persistent

noise that interferes with the performance of tasks and “bothers” a majority of people (e.g.,

Sundstrom, Town, Rice, Osborn, & Brill, 1994).

Researchers have studied the effect of exposure to high chronic noise levels on children’s

development, mainly in the home. Consistent high levels of residual or background noise,

such as that created by busy roads, has been suggested as a cause of delay in cognitive

development and diminished motivation, linked to a lack of on-task ability. In particular,

findings have suggested that high levels of noise cause some children to manifest greater

distractibility and a propensity to “...tune out signals from the environment, particularly

verbal signals” (Wohlwill & Heft, 1977, p. 127).. However, Wohlwill and Heft (1987) noted

that “...adaption to noise and similar conditions of background stimulation is highly

selective and ephemeral” (p. 319), and Evans and Lepore (1993) also observed important

individual differences among children.

Inside child care centres, attitudes towards noise and children have been more prevalent

than research findings. For example, it has been contended that children should be free to

be noisy (Eisenberg, 1997), and that noisy areas should be part of the planned centre

environment (Olds, 1997). More frequently, however, noise is described as unwelcome

and likely to intrude on children’s activities and interfere with program goals (e.g., Brown et

al., 1987; Greenwood, Carta, & Atwater, 1991; Neill, 1982; Wohlwill, 1983). Excessive

73

noise in the classroom has been described as fatiguing and stressful for both children and

staff (McCrea & Piscitelli, 1991; Sebastian, 1988), with the potential to “...encourage

behaviour in young children that leads to conflict” (Stephen, 1993, p. 7).

However, there appear to be no studies of connections between measured noise levels

and children’s problem behaviours in child care centres. There are no child care centre

regulations in Australia that stipulate levels for inappropriate noise and no evidence to

equate ratings of volume, pitch, tone, or wavelength, with behaviour or any other child

problems in the playroom. Furthermore, the identification of methodological problems

associated with measurements of noise in playrooms (Wohlwill & Heft, 1987) and the

effects of noise on very young children (Evans & Lepore, 1993), suggest that such

research would be an extremely difficult if not an impossible undertaking. As a

consequence, further consideration of the impact of sound and noise levels on children's

behaviour in a child care centre were not included in the current study.

2.3.2.8 Types of room lighting

A number of commentators have mentioned the desirability of different types of lighting in

early childhood classrooms, such as table lamps and spotlights (e.g., Bunnett & Davis,

1997; Olds, 1997; Shepherd & Eaton, 1997; Watkins & Durant, 1992). Most of these

suggestions appear to be based on adult aesthetic preferences for “warm” or “soft” lighting

to influence mood (Greenman, 1988), or for spotlights to focus attention on children’s work

or other objects (Shepherd & Eaton, 1997). Although variations in lighting were suggested

as a “...healthy alternatives to fluorescent lights” by Eisenberg (1997, p. 56), no rationale

or references to investigations were provided to support the contention that fluorescent

lighting is unhealthy.

Investigations have been undertaken in relation to the behavioural effects of fluorescent

lighting, with mixed results. For example, an examination of fluorescent lighting as a

source of hyperactive behaviour, by a team that included a representative of the General

Electric Lamp Business Group, found no effect (O’Leary, Rosenbaum, & Hughes, 1978).

The methodology was criticised on the grounds that it measured only short-term influences

and a subsequent longer-term study that did not include a representative of the General

Electric Lamp Business Group, did report some impact on children’s behaviour (Mayron,

1978). Ten years later, an investigation into the effects of warm white, cool white, and

full-spectrum fluorescent lighting, on simple cognitive performance and rating of others,

found “...no significant differences among the three lighting types on any of the dependent

measures” (Boray, Gifford, & Rosenblood, 1989, p. 297). Whether consequent to the

74

general failure of investigations to establish any ill effects from exposure or not, fluorescent

lighting is the standard type of electric lighting in most Australian child care centres and, in

the author’s experience, it is rare to see the use of incandescent lighting in playrooms for

aesthetic or any other reasons.

Abbott and Abbott (1995) also referred to children’s health, albeit from a different

perspective. They contended that “natural light is important not only for its health

benefits…but because it can provide an element of seasonal and daily changes that keeps

the child in touch with the surrounding natural environment” (p. 6). Rather than light, the

emphasis appears to be on views or windows and, notwithstanding some city and

shopping-centre-based child care centres, assumes that the surrounding environment is

natural. More to the point, the health benefits of natural light were not quantified, and no

claims were made for any influence that lighting might have on child behaviour.

In view of the difficulties in separating the influence of lighting from other variables, within a

child care centre program that moves children from indoors to outdoors for extended

periods usually twice a day, the current study gives no further consideration to the effects

of fluorescent lighting on children's behaviour.

2.3.2.9 Cosy corners

In addition to soft lighting, commentators have also called for soft or cosy areas in child

care centres (e.g., Bunnett & Davis, 1997; Choice, 1994; Clarke & Gray, 1997; Greenman,

1988; Koralek et al., 1993; Olds, 1997; Shepherd & Eaton, 1997), with the item being

included in the Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale (ECERS)3 (Harms, Clifford, &

Cryer, 1998). No specific rationale was offered in any of the studies or texts reviewed

beyond claims that a full day program is fatiguing and that soft areas are likely to help

ease tension (Prescott, 1994), and provide a homely atmosphere (McCrea & Piscitelli,

1991). However, no studies were found that have measured the impact of soft or cosy

areas on the behaviour of children.

2.3.2.10 Private places

The restorative and home-like theme has also been used by early childhood professionals

and others to call for private places to be made available for children in child care centres

3 The ECERS is a 43-item checklist designed in America to measure the quality of the environment in early childhood services. It is based around seven classes of items that provide subscales relating to space and furnishings, programs, children’s activities, child:child and child:staff interactions, personal care routines, language-reasoning, and staff:parent interactions.

75

(e.g., Alexander et al., 1977; Bunnett & Davis, 1997; Clarke & Gray, 1997; Cook & Kirby,

1989; McCrea & Piscitelli, 1991; Moore, 1996c; Trancik & Evans, 1995; Youcha & Wood,

1997), and the inclusion of private places for children in child care is highly rated on the

ECERS (Harms et al., 1998). The rationale for providing private places for children,

however, appears to be based more on theory and observation than on the findings of

research on children in child care. It has been suggested, for example, that an ability to

retreat from unpleasant stimuli, or over stimulation, may be important both for infants

(Wohlwill, 1983), and older children (Mobbs, 1994; Stephens, 1996b). Others have

suggested that securing privacy allows children to experience control over their

environment, considered by Proshansky and Fabian (1987) to be essential for healthy

psychological development. Similarly, access to privacy has also been seen as an ability

to regulate social interaction (Altman & Rogoff, 1987). In addition, It has been observed

that children will seek out private places for rest (Moore, 1996c), even if those spaces

were not intended for their use (Rettig, 1998). Despite all the calls, claims, and utilisation

of theoretical frameworks about private spaces, the author found only two studies that

claimed to have investigated the desire of young children for private places in a child care

centre.

In the first study, Lowry (1993) contended that “this research investigates the need for

privacy of the preschool child” (p. 130). However, the findings provided evidence of the

differential use of specific structures by gender and activity rather than reporting children’s

need for privacy. No details were provided of the numbers of children using the facilities,

how often each child used them, when they used them, or what other environmental

conditions existed at the time, apart from stating that the time-interval observations were

conducted during ‘free play’. The interpretation of the data, based on the children’s use of

two specially constructed small enclosures over three days, also appears confounded by

an apparent failure to consider the novelty value of the items and their attractiveness to the

children as facilities for play rather than privacy.

In the second study, Zeegers, Readdick, and Hansen-Gandy (1994) examined the

provisions that 100 children, aged 3-5 years, made for their own privacy in 10 child care

centres. During short interviews, each child was asked if he or she had a special place

and, if so, to tell the interviewer about it. While 58 mostly younger children indicated they

did have a special area, 42 stated that they did not have such a place, or require one. The

authors reported that the finding “...requires some reflection” and contended that “...it is

possible that children without perception of a special place in their childcare centre have

no problem and are simply more secure in their group setting or in general” (Zeegers et

76

al., 1994, p. 269). By limiting the children’s needs for private spaces to issues of security

and associated problems, and asking to be shown the place, Zeegers et al., (1994)

predetermined a standing need and a permanent setting for private spaces, which could

have confounded the findings. There was no suggestion in their study, for example, that

private places would not be permanent areas, or that impromptu settings would be used

for temporary respite, a place to observe others, or the creation of a private world.

In relation to the latter point, Langeveld (1983), viewing children’s secret places from a

phenomenological perspective, suggested that children under the age of five years

experience only “...by accident the stirrings of a secret place behind a piece of furniture...”

(p. 186). He contended that the meaning of private space was also age-dependent, and

that it is not understood as a place for creating his or her own world by children under the

age of eight years.

It is also probable that the child’s need for private places would be determined by the

structure and length of the day, the activities in which the child was involved, and the

variety of settings available to the child. Opportunities for uninterrupted solitary play, or

being an onlooker, may well compensate for a lack of physical structures designed for

privacy. In their study of playgroups and nursery schools, for example, Sylva, Roy and

Painter (1980) observed that “children often used manipulative materials as a ‘cover’ for

observation or just plain rest” (p. 64). That socially competent children aged 3-5 years

sometimes choose to be involved in solitary play and as solitary onlookers in group

situations has been well documented (e.g., Coplan, Rubin, Fox, Calkins, & Stewart, 1994;

Fleer, 1996; Harper & Huie, 1985; Roper & Hinde, 1978; Wyver & Spence, 1995).

Although adults recognise a need for access to privacy and an ability to regulate the social

environment, the immediate implications of a lack of private spaces for children, or of a

lack of opportunities for them to be involved in solitary play or as an onlooker, have not

been investigated. As a consequence, no direct link has been made between the

provision or absence of private places or substitute opportunities to withdraw from the

group, and manifestations of child behaviour problems.

2.3.2.11 Outside play area

In the late 1970s it was recognised that playgrounds needed to respond to a variety of

children’s needs, including the provision of opportunities for manipulating the environment,

areas for quiet play, “…and clear accomplishment points to reinforce the development of

self-concepts…” (Cohen, Hill, Lane, McGinty, & Moore, 1999, p. 23). Similarly, a little

77

later, Cielens and Cielens (1986) advocated for flexibility and variety, urging staff to

provide “…many changing tactile experiences, e.g. variety, textures, colour. Develop a

challenging space, not a static boring one. Develop a sense of ‘safe’ adventure” (p. 124).

However, research during the 1980s, investigating the influence of different playground

designs on children’s social, cognitive, and physical play behaviours, provided few

guidelines for specific approaches to design or programming (e.g., Brown & Burger, 1984;

Hart & Sheehan, 1986). Throughout the late 1980s and into the 1990s, concern continued

to be expressed about the inappropriateness of Australian child care centre designs,

including the outside play areas (e.g., Choice, 1994; Gelenter, 1988; Lacey, 1994; Mules,

1993; Nyland & Wood, 1994). However, little rationale was offered to explain what was

inappropriate, beyond general comments about the limited size and/or siting of the play

area in relation to surroundings.

A number of researchers have contended that children’s behaviour in the outdoor play

area is contingent upon the design of the setting in conjunction with its purpose in the

overall program (e.g., Carter, 1994; Cunningham, 1994; Susa & Benedict, 1994; Walsh,

1989). The point was reiterated by Walsh (1997) who cited examples of “...very bleak and

sterile settings” she had visited, observing that “the emerging pattern in these centres is

that of distracted children competing for the same play opportunities, leading to a

breakdown in behaviour, often exhibited as anti-social, aggressive behaviour” (p. 14). A

variety of investigations have been made into the impact of playgrounds on play, as well

as other aspects of social, cognitive, and physical development (e.g., Bruya, 1985; Cook &

Kirby, 1989; Frost, Shin, & Jacobs, 1998; Henniger, 1985; Meyer, 1997; Naylor, 1985;

Wyver & Spence, 1995). Despite the anecdotal evidence, however, little research has

been directed at the influence of child care centre outdoor play areas on the manifestation

of UCBs and, consequently, specific physical factors in the environmental have not been

identified.

An alternative approach to the study of play area behaviours has examined the impact of

nurturing styles on young children’s orientation to playgrounds and peers, finding that

“...age-related developmental characteristics of behavior may interact with aspects of

parenting and peer relations during the preschool years” (Hart, DeWolf, Wozniak, & Burts,

1992, p. 888). In particular, the investigators found that older preschoolers of mothers

who used an inductive style of discipline (i.e., setting limits, explaining reasons, and

eliciting ideas from children rather than using coercion), were more prosocial with peers,

engaging in rough-and-tumble but not anti-social play. The study provided no description

of the playground and made no reference to other environmental influences, but implied

78

the importance of the child’s psychological habitat in child:child relationships in the setting

of a playground.

2.3.3 Social factors in the environment of a child care centre

Ramsey (1995) contended that “one critical aspect of the social environment is the range

and intensity of children’s peer contacts” (p. 764). Her claim followed the

Campos-de-Carvalho and Rossette-Ferreira, (1993) observation that “...peer interactions

are as important as adult-child interactions in the children’s learning and development” (p.

20). Some years earlier, however, Hartup (1983) had warned that

Isolating the variance in children’s socialization that derives from contact with other children is extremely difficult. Peer interaction affects behavioral development in conjunction with experience occurring within other social networks. Neither contrived experiments nor experiments of nature provide very good opportunities for studying the developmental contributions that derive directly from peer interaction. The investigator must always tease this information from data confounded by organismic changes, stimulation from the nonsocial environment, and stimulation from adults. (p. 104)

2.3.3.1 Play objects as a source of conflict

In a later example of the difficulties separating social factors from others, Hartup and

Laursen (1993) contended that children’s conflicts usually involved either object control or

social control, and are particularly evident when children are in situations promoting social

interdependence. The impact of particular activities and activity areas on occurrences of

conflictual behaviour has already been mentioned, as have matters relating to resource

scarcity and object status. The focus of other research on objects frequently involves

investigations of toy use, particularly their role in promoting social or isolate play (Rettig et

al., 1993) or aggression (Feshbach, 1955; Parke & Slaby, 1983; Sanson & Di Muccio,

1993; Sherburne et al., 1988). These studies have featured the object as determining or

contributing to much of the behaviour exhibited by children.

In some contrast, Sims (1997) suggested that objects are frequently used instrumentally

by children as a means of initiating group entry. In one study, noting that

Children commonly attempted to join the play of another by focusing on an object involved in the play....On the surface such conflicts appear to be over the possession of an object....However, deeper analysis identifies these conflicts as peer entry conflicts, with initiating children using the object as a way into the play. (p. 36)

2.3.3.2 Intragroup conflicts and social control

The conflicts that arise from attempts at group entry may be part of necessary social

interaction, with Maynard (1985) suggesting that “the manifest function of social conflict

79

among children is to build their small group society and its structure....Disputes and

arguments among peers represent a way that children acquire a sense of social structure”

(p. 207). La Freniere and Charlesworth (1987) found that although peer status may take

some time to appear among preschool aged children, “...once established, the individual

child’s dominance rank and sociometric status are stable over the course of a school year”

(p. 346).

Earlier investigations had also recognised social status among young children and

suggested that staff intervention in children’s conflicts needs to be undertaken with care,

warning that disturbing dominance relationships among children may lead to greater

problems (Smith & Connolly, 1980; Watkins & Durant, 1992). La Freniere and

Charlesworth (1987) found that gaining entry to the group did not guarantee a decrease in

the manifestations of problem behaviours. They found “...complex patterns of social

organisation with respect to dominance and friendship...that conspire against equal

exchanges...” (pp. 345-6), and that more than two-thirds of interactions “...were verbal or

physical attempts to manipulate or control the behaviour of the social partner” (p. 356).

More specifically, Dunn and McGuire (1992) found a greater amount of social conflict

among friends than peers who were not close friends.

Other researchers have also investigated implications of dominance relationships (e.g.,

Pettit et al., 1990; Strayer & Strayer, 1976; Vaughn & Waters, 1981), with estimates that

dominance or status conflicts account for 20% of all preschool interactions (Abramovitch &

Strayer, 1978). In particular, it has been contended that “...a certain amount of bullying in

boys is normal maintenance of dominance and a pecking order” (Zoccolillo, 1993, p. 75).

Contrary to group entry behaviours, one study reported no clear sex differences in the

exercise of dominance, with results indicating that some girls were dominant over some

boys and vice versa (Sluckin & Smith, 1977). Examining occurrences of particular types of

behaviour, Fabes et al. (1996) reported that a greater amount of anger provocation related

only to girls, citing the higher percentage of time well-liked boys spent together as

confounding previous findings.

Hatch (1987) identified a set of strategies used by kindergarten children to negotiate social

standing including self-promotion and attempts to dominate as well as “put-down” others.

While bullying is often associated with dominance, other variations of dominant behaviour

are less frequently specified, although Tisak et al. (1996) noted that some children initiated

more confrontational behaviours than others.

80

Examining the format of behaviours, Camras (1977) noted the importance of facial

expressions in children’s conflicts, and it has been suggested that children learn to

recognise dominance gestures early in life and that this ability “...may be in place by age 4”

(Keating & Bai, 1986, p. 1274). The capacity of children at age three years to recognise a

range of common facial expressions, and to assess their meaning, has been observed

elsewhere (Hestenes et al., 1993).

Other investigations have focussed on the consequences of children’s failure to recognise

expressions and meaning in interactions. In particular, a number of studies have

examined impairment in the social cognitive processes of young children, particularly in

relation to the misinterpretation of positive or ambiguous social cues (Courtney & Cohen,

1996; Crick, 1995; Crick & Dodge, 1996; Dodge, 1980). McKeough et al. (1994) observed

that children aged four years are often unable to sustain an understanding of intentions in

many situations, which they attributed to “...systemic limitations in working memory” (p.

287). Hartup (1974) had similarly contended that, before the age of six years “...children

have limited capacities for role taking and the generation of inferences and attributions

about other people” (p. 338). While Bandura (1973) observed that the task of assessing a

person’s intentions is no simple matter, noting that, among other factors, intent is inferred

from the social context of the act.

Children’s difficulties in judging intent were similarly observed in relation to assessing

mitigating circumstances for apparently harmful or hostile acts (Martin & Ross, 1996).

Several studies have found that children also have some problems applying adult

perceptions of morality to their relationships with other children (Berndt, 1977; Levine,

1995; Nucci & Turiel, 1978). In some cases, the cause of the problems have been

attributed to social and cultural differences in attitudes towards some behaviours rather

than maturation of children alone (Alloway, 1997; Bandura & Walters, 1959; Erickson &

Mohatt, 1982; Lefkowitz et al., 1977; Loane, 1996). Separate from normal maturation

considerations, McKeough et al. (1994) found “...that behaviorally disturbed boys

demonstrated a significant lag in their understanding of human intentionality, compared to

their normal peers” (p. 299).

In addition to problems children may have in interpreting the intent of others, it has been

proposed that boys tend to be less accommodating to children outside the group while

girls will “...notice them and befriend them” (Biddulph, 1997, p. 9). Providing gender-

related prerogatives was also observed in another study as reasons for refusing a child

entry to a group. However, conflicts associated with objects, territory, and crowding were

81

also noted and together comprised 50% of all resistance to group entry attempts (Hartup &

Laursen, 1993).

2.3.3.3 Joining a friendship circle

While the importance of peer relations has been widely acknowledged, it has been

proposed that the child’s smaller circle of friends may be more influential than the general

group (Pierce & Cohen, 1995), or may be more important than being popular in the larger

peer group (Dockett & Degotardi, 1997). The suggestion generates specific questions

about the importance of peer group relations, and what it is that may attract children to one

another.

Successfully joining a peer play group has been seen as a prerequisite for the child’s

further social interaction (Putallaz & Wasserman, 1990). Much earlier, Isaacs (1933)

suggested that there was also an element of safety involved, in that if the child saw others

doing things without punishment or danger then he or she felt safe to copy the behaviours,

reinforcing the link between social interaction and social learning among peers. On the

other hand, the actions of the group, or the attractive status of its members, may also be a

motive for a child seeking membership (Furman & Masters, 1980).

2.3.3.4 Popularity

Studies of other aspects of children’s relationships have found a consistent link between a

child’s popularity within the peer group and positive peer perceptions of his or her physical

attractiveness and social behaviour (e.g., Adams, 1977; Dion, 1973; Dion & Berscheid,

1974; Langlois & Stephan, 1977; Styczynski & Langlois, 1977). Relevant to child care

centre groups, “...physical attractiveness appears to be a significant determinant of social

attraction as early as age 3” (Langlois & Stephan, 1981, p. 153). In relation to group

membership, the more physically attractive children were found to be chosen as friends

more frequently by other children (Drewry & Clark, 1985).

In the longer term, however, findings from one study suggested that physical

attractiveness might be less a determinant of popularity among boys than it is for girls

(Vaughn & Langlois, 1983). Other investigators have pointed to different factors in

creating friendships, for example, similar interests and values (Bandura, 1992), and

“...common activities, general play, propinquity, evaluation, and physical possessions...”

(Hayes, 1978, p. 908). Although including attractiveness, Drewry and Clark (1985) also

found personal and social self-concepts important, along with verbal intelligence. More

recently, Dockett and Degotardi (1997) suggested a relationship between the popularity of

82

children among peers and a “representational theory of mind” (p. 21).

2.3.3.5 Unattractiveness

Supporting contentions about the influence of physical appearance, preschool-age

children have frequently been reported over a period of two decades as attributing

antisocial and aggressive behaviours to unattractive children (Berscheid & Walster, 1972;

Dion, 1972, 1973; Fabes et al., 1996; Hartup, 1983), although Styczynski and Langlois

(1977) found the attribution applied only to unacquainted children. Meanwhile, Hayes

(1978) noted that “...rule violation, aggression, and aberrant behavior seem to provide

important bases for dislike among young children...” (p. 908).

Looking at the evidence from another perspective, Adams and Crane (1980) expressed

concern that socialisation based on physical attractiveness or unattractiveness could lead

to stereotyping and to reinforcing behaviours. The point was supported later when it was

observed that among boys the actions of a child who is not well liked are more liable to be

interpreted negatively, and responded to with more physical retaliation, than are the action

of a liked peer (Fabes et al., 1996). In addition, Turner (1991) found that having a

reputation for aggression was seen as likely to provoke more exchanges that are

aggressive.

On the other hand, it has also been observed that “normal peers do not like to play with

these children, thereby depriving them of potentially normalizing social experiences”

(Reid, 1993, p. 251). The claim was in contrast to Hayes, Gershman, and Bolin (1980)

who had observed that few children of preschool age appeared to show reciprocity of

disliking or strong mutual animosities. In addition, Rholes and Ruble (1984) found that

young children do not regard the dispositions of others to be stable as a personal

characteristic across time or settings. However, tolerant peer behaviour towards

aggressive children, particularly those with a limited capacity for social cognition, was seen

as likely to serve as a form of positive reinforcement for aggressive children and “...might

further contribute to their lack of status awareness by simply failing to provide them with

the feedback they need in order to realize that their behavior is unacceptable” (Coie &

Jacobs, 1993, p. 266).

Of some significance to the general claims made about aggressive children are the

findings of studies that have taken the identity of victims into account. In particular it has

been found that aggression is usually directed to only a few specific children and may not

impact on the classroom peer group as a whole (Dunn & McGuire, 1992; Pierce & Cohen,

83

1995). In addition, it has been suggested that opportunities for aggressive and other

problematic behaviours may be limited by structural factors within the setting, the most

salient of which are discussed below.

2.3.4 Structural factors within a child care centre environment

Under ten sub-headings, studies that primarily implicate the structural environment in the

manifestation of behaviour problems are reviewed. Although comprising elements of the

environment that are distinct from both direct social interaction of children and the

influences of physical factors, structural factors are intricately linked to both and cannot be

fully considered without reference to them. At the same time, structural factors may be

seen as a product of cultural influence and providing support for cultural factors.

2.3.4.1 Program organisation

Three decades ago, an American investigation into the effects on child behaviour of

different types of early childhood programs found that “the single environmental

characteristic of importance...was the structure of the nursery school day” (Berk, 1971, p.

865). In particular, the study showed that fewer child behaviour problems occurred in the

more teacher-directed programs because, it was suggested, children were more compliant

and there were fewer opportunities for the occurrence of child:child conflict. Smith and

Connolly (1980) reported similar findings for sessions that were more teacher-directed,

establishing that children spent a greater amount of time interacting with staff than with

peers and more time on fewer activities, but noting that “...for some, joining in was a rather

passive business” (p. 311). Although they found less rough-and-tumble play, in contrast to

Berk (1971), the more teacher-directed sessions did occasion “...some increase in

aggressive interactions with other children” (Smith & Connolly, 1980, p. 311).

In addressing staff on issues about child autonomy in Australian centres, Farmer (1988)

presented an alternative view to the findings referred to above, suggesting that child

behaviour problems were often created by “...formal, structured environments;

adult-imposed routines; and large group experiences...” (p. 11). Overseas, other

researchers have also identified problems associated with rigidity in planning, suggesting

that “the child who feels locked into a set of rigidly determined activities and responses to

them may seek anything novel so he can experience some stimulation - even to the point

of engaging in the forbidden and the dangerous” (Watkins & Durant, 1992, p. 56).

The general idea that a staff-directed programs could engender problem behaviours in

children is supported by the results of an investigation made some years earlier, although

84

the children in that study had been previously identified as exhibiting high levels of activity.

Using what they called structured play sessions and free play sessions, Schleifer et al.

(1975) compared the behaviours of hyperactive and non-hyperactive children in the two

types of settings. Findings indicated no group differences in the free play settings, but a

greater amount of problematic behaviours from the hyperactive group in the structured

setting.

On the other hand, Del’Homme et al. (1994), in a study of 42 preschool children in free

play and what they called “instructional” settings, found children identified as being at risk

of externalising behaviour problems exhibited fewer on-task and attending behaviours

during the instructional sessions, and more aggressive behaviour in the free play settings.

The findings demonstrated that the level of staff direction in a session might not be the

sole influence on behaviour as it appears confounded with child characteristics, at least.

However, the investigators noted that not recording teacher or peer responses to

observed children, or other environmental factors such as materials used, might have

limited their findings.

A number of studies have found that behaviour problems often occur in temporally ordered

shared situations involving programs and schedules (e.g., Atwater & Morris, 1988; Clarke

& Gray, 1997; Courtney & Kowalski, 1995; Davidson, 1980), and materials and equipment

(e.g., Buffin, 1996; Koralek et al., 1993; Prescott, 1994). On the other hand, it has also

been suggested that excessive flexibility could be a threat to internal functioning (Wicker,

1987).

2.3.4.2 Routine activities

Principle 27 of the Australian QI&AS, states that “routine activities such as eating, toileting,

and resting/sleeping provide security for children who do not yet understand the abstract

concept of time” (National Childcare Accreditation Council, 1993, p. 69). Accreditation

requires that procedures for routine activities within the centre are flexible and

developmentally appropriate for the enrolled children. The reasons for this statement

appear to be based on ideas similar to those suggested by Watkins and Durant (1992), in

that “preschoolers benefit from routine....Too many schedule and activity changes upset

and frustrate them” (p. 39).

On the other hand, Australian educators and practitioners have claimed that problem

behaviours often occur during specific group rituals, such as mealtimes, afternoon sleep

periods, and toilet routines (e.g., Farmer, 1988; Holloway, 1991). American early

85

childhood professionals had observed the same phenomena and suggested that the

problems were due to staff using the structure of time as a form of social control, assuming

“...absolute power over the rhythm of living...” (Greenman, 1988, p. 84). It was also

suggested that external control over time may lower a child’s self esteem and, in particular,

“adults who often make children wait for them...convey a basic lack of respect for children”

(Davidson, 1980, p. 13).

The claim is of particular interest in the message it conveys about adult:child relationships

but is subject to a number of child development and cultural factors. It has been

contended, for example, that the child’s concept of time is different to that of adults (Scott,

1998). For young children, it has been suggested, time is devoid of all abstractions

(National Childcare Accreditation Council, 1993), being phenomenologically related to his

or her physical activity which is confounded by perceptions of space in relation to velocity

(Piaget, 1971). Assigning young children a lineal view of time was challenged by Lippitz

(1983), who from another phenomenological position argued that children live in time and

with time as much as adults, with their own aspects of past, present, future, boredom, and

concepts of age.

Taking a different perspective, the importance of time, and negative meanings attached to

being kept waiting, has been clearly identified as a facet of Western cultures and

particularly the American lifestyle, with no value accorded waiting-time by many other

cultural groups (Greenman, 1988; Hall, 1959; Hall, 1969). Therefore, the contention of

Davidson (1980), that keeping children waiting shows a “lack of respect” for them, may

reflect the view of an adult influenced by Western culture rather than the interpretation of a

situation by children aged 3-5 years.

Although there is probably general agreement that children should be respected, there

may be other good reasons for keeping waiting times for children to a minimum. For

example, Davidson (1980) indicated that waiting has been identified as engendering

boredom and encouraging young children to behave inappropriately. However, she based

her claim on the unsubstantiated premise that such behaviours result from children’s

“...natural desire to keep busy” (p. 13). Overall, therefore, there appears to be little

agreement or evidence to confirm the advantage or disadvantage of the implementing

routines as a means of minimising the occurrence of problem behaviours.

2.3.4.3 Transitions

Apart from group rituals, transitions between locations and activities within the centre have

86

also been identified as periods vulnerable to the manifestation of problematic child

behaviours (Clarke & Gray, 1997; Courtney & Kowalski, 1995; Davidson, 1980). The

planning of transitions as part of the program has been encouraged (e.g., Bunnett & Davis,

1997; McCrea & Piscitelli, 1991; Stephens, 1996a), with the ECERS allocating top ratings

to transitions that “...handled a few children at a time rather than the whole group” (Harms

et al., 1998, p. 42), a point reiterated for Australian centres by Gruss et al. (1998).

More importantly, for Australian centres, principle 28 of the QI&AS states, as a

requirement, that “transitions between activities are smooth” (National Childcare

Accreditation Council, 1993, p. 71). In their manual for assisting staff to achieve and

maintain quality care, Clarke and Gray (1997) suggest involving preschool-age children in

clean-up and pack-away tasks. They also suggest pre-empting transitions with a five-

then two-minute warning, to allow children involved in time-consuming activities to

complete tasks, which would ease the way for change. American research has shown for

some time that the use of warnings has significant effect for the preschool age group

(Routh et al., 1974), with findings demonstrating that “verbal warning caused these

children to move more quickly to initiate and finish the pick-up tasks” (Zeece & Crase,

1982, p. 272).

Other practitioners have suggested that the consistent use of a signal, such as flicking

lights or a ringing bell, could be used to cue children for transition and help them “...get into

the ‘mood’...” and provide a “...sense of stability, familiarity, and predictability” (Stephens,

1996a, p. 42). On the other hand, Courtney and Kowalski (1995) contended that such

signals were an example of teachers exerting power over children by demanding an

immediate response, describing them as “...manipulative strategies based on group

conformity” (p. 7). The potential danger for creating problem behaviours in such a

situation was noted by Miller (1996) in contending that “children need ways to feel more

powerful to counteract feelings of helplessness. Their response to feelings of

helplessness, to ‘cover-up’ for it, may be to become bossy, belligerent, aggressive, and to

challenge rules and limits” (p. 50). However, apart from the Zeece and Crase (1982)

experiment, which was contrived in a free-play session and not implemented under

entirely naturalistic conditions, there has been little research into the efficacy or

consequences of employing warning systems to alert children of transitions.

Questioning the rigidity of formal transition periods, there have been recent suggestions

that the limitations imposed by schedules should be kept to a minimum for children,

allowing them “...to work with the understanding that they are not going to be required to

87

finish a game, project, construction, or painting within a 30 minute time frame” (Shepherd

& Eaton, 1997, p. 46). Similarly, there have been calls to “...set aside the old notion of

needing to have everything ‘cleaned up’ during clean up time” (Bunnett & Davis, 1997, p.

44). As with the use of cues and warning, the removal of restrictive schedules and

allowing children greater freedom in pursuing activities appears to be more an ideological

conceptualisation of empowering children and encouraging creativity than a strategy

based on the findings of methodological research. In a small way the predicament for

staff, created by schedules and transitions in child care centres, reflects that which Kahn

(1996) viewed as a problem of the wider relationship between human behaviour and

nonlinear dynamics (chaos theory), in that “in this search for creativity, one is seeking a

relationship between order and disorder, between structure and freedom...” (p. 326).

2.3.4.4 Schedules

Difficulties caused by contrasting biological demands on children inherent in the

relationship between structure and freedom have been illustrated in child care centres by

investigations of the consequences of moving children between different types of settings.

For example, a study of behavioural ecology in the classroom found that levels of problem

behaviour during transitions and story periods varied significantly depending upon the

preceding level of physical activity (Krantz & Risley, 1977). In particular, it was found that

child behaviour problems were more frequent in a passive session if the children had been

involved in a very active period beforehand, such as outdoor play immediately prior to

“group-time” or “circle-time”. The reason was suggested by Morehouse and Gross (1977)

in their adult exercise guide: Total fitness in 30 minutes a week. They contended that for

most people, young or old, “the body doesn’t like to be quiet after exercise. It’s restless. It

wants to move” (pp. 150-1). A point reiterated by Watkins and Durant (1992) in their

behaviour management guide, when they advised that children “…cannot simply turn off

their outdoor behavior because someone rang the bell…” (p. 60).

A more cerebral example of the problem was related by Holloway (1991) who found, in her

centre, that the children had difficulties settling down to afternoon sleep after lunch.

Rather than a period of exercise, she identified the problem as excitement caused by

bedtime stories that were too stimulating. Staff had to moderate their approach and

“...stories before bed had to be told in a quieter tone, with little excitement in the voice,

otherwise they found the children were not relaxed sufficiently to sleep easily” (Holloway,

1991, p. 173).

88

2.3.4.5 A group view of children

While acknowledging the individuality of each child, a group view of children in child care is

apparent among the staff of some centres (Balcombe & Tansey, 1996). Furthermore, it

has been suggested that each group of children, and their families, have broad

characteristics that manifest in specific needs unique to their group (Masselos & Healey,

1981; Schneider, 1986; Watts, 1987). Therefore, as one group becomes the numerical

majority in a centre as a result of changing enrolment, so the program may have to

change to meet the dominant needs (Butterworth, 1987; de Lacey, 1979). In any situation

that caters for the group as a whole and for the dominant majority in particular, there may

be a greater potential for generating child behaviour problems if the needs of individuals in

the minority sub-group are not met as well.

2.3.4.6 Group size

Apart from issues concerned with crowding, the numerical size of groups has also been

seen as an influence on child behaviour. For example, in reviewing the literature for her

study of 30 classrooms in 24 child care centres in America, Dunn (1993) reported that

children enrolled in programs with fewer than 25 in the group tended

...to be more cooperative, compliant, and considerate, engage in more sophisticated social play, perform with more sophistication on measures of social competence, give fewer antisocial responses during social problem-solving tasks and make better academic progress....Large group sizes have been associated with more aimless wandering by children and lower levels of social adjustment. (p. 168)

Her own study, however, found that the effects of group size could be mediated by the

qualities of the staff members (Dunn, 1993).

In a British study using an experimental design that involved selected teachers, Connolly

and Smith (1978) had earlier compared the behaviours of children in small groups of

10-15 children with those in larger classes of 20-30 children. They concluded that “...the

frequency of aggressive behaviour did not change, but it must be remembered that the

physical resources were increased commensurately with increase in class size” (p. 93).

Smith and Connolly (1980) observed that sub-groups, mainly of the same sex, were often

created within larger groups, whereas sub-groups within the smaller groups were larger

than sub-groups within the large groups, and often of mixed-sex composition. They also

found there was generally less aggressive behaviour in the smaller groups, but the group

size findings may have been confounded by sub-group sex compositions.

89

2.3.4.7 Mixed-age grouping

Most Australian child care centres are designed to meet staffing and floor space

regulations which require specific adult:child ratios for children under 2 years, over 2 but

under 3 years, and those aged 3-5 years. Consequently, standard designs for child care

centres include a nursery (0-2 years), a toddler room (2 years), and a preschool age

children’s room (3-5 years). As such, most Australian centres constitute what educators in

the United States would probably see as a mixed-age group of children aged 3-5 years,

which could confound the interpretation of one nation’s research findings by the other.

For example, two investigations into mixed-age grouping carried out in America in the late

1970s and early 1980s were with children in the age-range 3-5 years. Goldman (1981)

found that the age group composition of children in the preschool group did influence the

pattern of social interaction. Explaining similar findings in an earlier study, Lougee,

Grueneich, and Hartup (1977) suggested that “...preschool-aged children have not yet

acquired stable mechanisms for modulating the rate of social activity in accordance with

the affective and cognitive demands of mixed-age social situations” (p. 1360). In a later

investigation of sex-role socialisation in mixed-aged classroom involving children aged

three and four years, inconsistencies were found when both age and sex were considered

simultaneously as independent variables (Roopnarine, 1984).

The relatively few Australian centres known to the author that specify the practice of

mixed-age grouping normally have groups of children aged 2-5 years, if not 0-5 years.

This age-range, again, may present some difficulties for the application of findings on

mixed-aged groups defined as being composed of children aged 3-5 years. However, no

studies were found that have investigate the long-term effects of mixed-age grouping,

compared to age-grading, and no consensus about particular compositions of ages

appears to have been achieved.

Nevertheless, the wider mixed-age, or family grouping, has been promoted in Australia as

an alternative to the separation between babies, toddlers and preschoolers (Jones, 1990).

That promotion has varied from advocacy for a permanent full-time arrangement to

encouragement for mixed-age grouping in particular settings (Clarke & Gray, 1997). It has

been suggested that the wider range of ages in a single group provide a more stimulating

work setting for staff (Jones, 1990; Sebastian, 1986). In the absence of any research

finding for the efficacy of the wider age-range mix, the advantages have been conjectured

in America as providing “...power...for scaffolding children’s play and learning” (Fromberg,

1997, p. 55). However, no further consideration appears to have been given to the

90

possible behavioural issues raised earlier by Goldman (1981) and Lougee et al. (1977).

2.3.4.8 Program duration, timing and time-of-day

Although the time factor has already been considered in a number of different ways, the

effect on the behaviour of young children, of length of time in a single behaviour setting

during any one day, has received very little attention. Amongst researchers who have

addressed the issue, Christie et al. (1988) compared the play behaviours of 34 children

aged 4-5 years in 15- and 30-minute play sessions. They found that the longer period

engendered higher percentages of group and constructive play, but made no report on the

occurrence of problem behaviours. In contrast, Boisen (1992) found more child conflicts

occurred in a single play periods of 30 minutes duration than in the total duration of two

separate periods of 15 minutes each.

The results of both studies may be reporting similar phenomena, as increased complexity

of play may necessitate greater amounts of negotiation, with subsequent increases in

conflict. In terms of child care centre programs, which may have both indoor and outdoor

free-play sessions lasting 60 minutes or more on several occasions each day, the

comparison with 15-minute sessions have limited relevance.

Smith and Connolly (1980) found that the time-of-day had a generally small “...but not

insignificant” (p. 48) effect on behaviour, a point that they considered important. Other

investigators have also noted variations in stimulus conditions with the time-of-day and

day of the week (e.g., Touchette, MacDonald, & Langer, 1985). Holloway (1991),

quantified the importance of timing by indicating that life in her centre “...starts slowly,

becomes a VORTEX in the middle of the day, then gradually slows down...” (p. 171).

Similarly, Stephens (1996b) associated 3.00pm with herself being tired and the children

being “...rambunctious” (p. 44).

As time is little more than a measuring device, however, it cannot directly effect behaviour.

Even though it may be conceptualised differently by adults and children, time impacts on

behaviour only in concert with a specific situation that may be temporally sited. Holloway’s

vortex, for example, resulted from the nature of the planned program and was smoothed

by alteration to that program. For Stephens, it is more likely that the program of activities

during the course of the day had exhausted her rather than the abstraction of 3.00pm.

In the absence of findings relating child problem behaviours to the duration, time and

timing of activities in a child care centre that are not confounded by schedules and

91

programmed activities, timing of events and their duration in the current study are

regarded as artefacts of the program and schedule.

2.3.4.9 Seasons

Although included as part of the structure in the current review, seasons and the following

section of weather, should probably be regarded as part of the macro-system of the

environment of a child care centre. However, the seasons and associated weather impact

on structure and the program of activities provided by staff for children, particularly in the

balance of indoor and outdoor play. Mainly in the medical rather than educational

literature, the seasons have also been acknowledged as exerting influence on behaviours,

particularly the autumn and winter months, as a consequence of seasonal affective

disorders (SAD). Although a considerable number of studies have investigated SAD

among adults, frequency of occurrence among children has received less attention

(Giedd, Sweno, Lowe, & Rosenthal, 1998). Incidences of SAD in school-age children

have been investigated over the past few years by Milman and Bennett (1996), and Glod,

Teicher, Polcari, and McGreenery, (1997). Parental reports on 1680 primary school-age

children indicated seasonal changes in children’s sleeping and eating patterns, as well as

their levels of irritability, energy, withdrawal, and sadness (Carskadon & Acebo, 1993). In

addition, the findings of case studies have been reported on children aged 9 years (Cooke

& Thompson, 1998; Meesters, 1998), 7 years (Swedo et al., 1997), and 6 years (Giedd et

al., 1998). However, no studies were found that have investigated occurrences of SAD in

children under the age of 5 years. Therefore, no evidence is available to suggest that the

seasons in themselves impact on the behaviour of very young children, although the

winter months may exert another type of influence. The point was clarified by O’Keefe

(1995) who pointed out that winter is “...usually a period when there is a lot of sickness for

children, staff and indeed children of staff. This can be a very frustrating and tiring time for

everyone involved” (p. 19).

2.3.4.10 Weather and problem behaviour

Similar to seasonal factors already mentioned, weather is often stated as a likely influence

on behaviour (e.g., Barker, 1968; Brown et al., 1987, Clarke & Grey, 1997; Sylva et al.,

1980; Roper & Hinde, 1978), although no studies were found that have examined specific

links between climatic conditions and young children’s behaviour. Most investigations

concerned with the influence of weather have been in the form of forensic studies of

violent crimes committed by adults (e.g., Cohn, 1990; DeFronzo, 1984; Michael & Zumpe,

1983; Perry & Simpson, 1987; Rotton & Frey, 1985). While periods of high and low

temperatures and levels of precipitation were examined, and a variety of correlations with

92

assaults, murder and rape have been established, the findings are contradictory.

Part of the difficulty associated with linking behaviour to weather appears to be in

establishing precisely what aspect of weather affects people. For example, while heat has

been associated with many problems, the impact of prolonged hot spells compared to

sudden changes from cool to very hot periods is less clear. Similarly, the corresponding

effects of humidity, wind, and sunlight, appear not to have been considered in detail.

Taken together, therefore, there appears to be little evidence for associating the

manifestation of child behaviour problems solely with weather conditions. As a

consequence of the difficulties associated with measuring the impact of weather on child

behaviour, no further consideration is given to weather conditions in the current study.

2.3.5 Cultural factors within the environment of a child care centre

The cultural of a particular child care centre is represented by the learned and shared

consensual behaviours of the group, its values and rules, and evolves from a combining of

the experiences, beliefs and training of individual staff members. At the same time, in

addition to the product, the dynamic processes of trying to achieve and maintain

consensus gives rise to work and child rearing climates.

Although the climate has been equated with culture (Shepherd & Eaton, 1997; Werner,

1996), a definition of climate in a child care centre usually refers to the attitudes and

interpersonal style of staff, particularly their behaviour towards enrolled children (Hedin et

al., 1997). More specifically:

Climate in a day care centre is supposed to reflect the psychosocial processes in the center concerning the behavioral regularities of the adults in their work with the children, concerning their intentions about the work with the children and concerning their attitudes and norms about their interpersonal relations and about their work. (Ekholm et al., 1995, p. 97)

Similar to the work climate, organisational climate incorporates many staff:staff issues

as well as those associated with the workplace. In her book, A Great Place to Work,

Jorde-Bloom (1988) listed some of the dimensions of organisational climate that she

saw as crucial measures in relation to staff and administration. The list included

collegiality, supervisor support, the reward system, goal consensus, and physical

setting. The organisational climate has been nominated as “...affecting critical process

components of quality care in child care centres...” (Hayden, 1996, p. 6), which in turn

affect child behaviours.

Like many other concepts inherent in matters of behaviour and environment, additional

93

terms with non-shared meaning have been introduced and threaten to confound

discussion. For example, in their attempt to capture the pervading feeling of calm or strain

resulting from person:person interactions in early childhood settings, Harms and Clifford

(1980) used the terms “tone” and “atmosphere”. On the other hand, Sebastian (1988) saw

atmosphere as being deliberately created for children by manipulation of the environment.

Watkins and Durant (1992) shared the latter definition and identified the constituents of

atmosphere as aspects of the physical environment, including lighting, temperature,

ventilation, and colour of the room. At the same time, they agreed with Harms and Clifford

that tone is “...set by adults as they interact with children, parents, and with other staff

members...” (Watkins & Durant, 1992, p. 74). Campbell, Breaux, Ewing, Szumowski, and

Pierce (1986) used tone to describe the emotional component of interactions, nominated

by others as “affective” (Magnusson, 1981a; Scott-Little & Holloway, 1992), “negative

affective” (Eisenberg et al., 1994), or “friendly” (Turner, 1991).

To review the literature on the most salient features of this complex area, studies have

been organised under five interrelated headings that reflect various manifestations of

culture and climate. These are: individual teaching and group management strategies;

staff:staff interactional processes; staff:child interactional processes; classroom rules for

children; and developmentally appropriate practices.

2.3.5.1 Individual teaching and group management strategies

In general, there is widespread support for the concept that the teaching and group

management strategies of an individual staff member, including anticipation of and

reaction to problematic child behaviours, is the result of theories he or she develops from

personal experience, training, and practical knowledge (e.g., Charlesworth et al., 1993;

Condry & Ross, 1985; Fagot, 1977; Johnson, 1988; Malaguzzi, 1994; McGuire &

Richman, 1986; Tisak et al., 1996). For example, the acceptance of some psychoanalytic

beliefs, such as innate aggressiveness (Johnson, 1972; Lefkowitz et al., 1977), has been

seen to have the potential to create different expectations and tolerance for problem

behaviours compared to someone who takes a more interactionist view (Carey, 1982).

The point was illustrated in a report on day nurseries in Britain which found that, while

some staff saw children as basically sensible and reasonably responsible, others “...saw

them as being basically unruly and incapable of sustained activity without adult direction...”

(Garland & White, 1980, p. 35).

The latter tenet has a long history going back many hundreds of years before Freud

(Ariès, 1962), and variations of its continuity into the twentieth century can be seen from

94

the view of one leading child psychologist in the 1930s, who noted, in her book on

childhood anger, that:

The process of transforming the child from an undisciplined little savage, whose physical needs are attended to only at the urge of his own desires, into a civilized human being, in whom such activities are brought under the control of a standardized routine established by the social group, is not an easy one. (Goodenough, 1931, p. 144)

It has also been observed that different reactions may result from variations in the degree

of tolerance for child behaviour problems exhibited by teachers (Conway, 1990; Crowther

et al., 1981; Luk et al., 1991). Other investigators have been more specific, suggesting

that staff members’ responses to problem behaviours are related to their beliefs about

locus of control for particular children (Miller, 1995; Ollendick & LaBerteaux, 1978;

Scott-Little & Holloway, 1992), the child’s intention (Slee & Cross, 1990; Spivack et al.,

1986; Tisak et al., 1996), and the implications (Bugental, Blue, & Lewis, 1990) or the

amount of damage to property or pain caused to other children (Bandura, 1973; Martin &

Ross, 1996).

Alternatively, in the study of nursery schools in Scotland by Neill and Denham (1982),

referred to earlier, it was found that a significant majority of staff were “…prepared to let

children get away with some amount of aggression”, mainly because “...staff actions were

determined more by knowledge of the children involved and the reasons for the

aggressive act, less by the kind and extent of the aggression involved...” (p. 109).

Tolerance levels have also been associated with teachers’ experiences of their own

childhood, with the suggestion that “females who had engaged in aggressive play or

played with aggressive toys as children were less likely than other females to judge

children’s play episodes as ‘aggression’ ” (Goldstein, 1992, p. 68).

Consequences of a different type may also play a role as the tolerance levels of teachers

has been observed to depend on how much a child’s problem behaviour influences their

own relationship with the child (Anderson-Goetz & Worobey, 1984; Taylor & Romanczyk,

1994). For example, Stebbins (1971) contended that the actions of some teachers

reflected their desire to avoid provoking a child into further confrontation. Evaluation of

problematic child behaviours may also be influenced by the adult’s need to maintain power

(Dreikurs et al., 1998; Gordon et al., 1996) or be biased by the way teachers see their role

in maintaining order (Coie, Dodge, & Kupersmidt, 1990; Stebbins, 1973).

Alternatively, it has been suggested that busy staff may not make proper assessments of

95

specific child behaviours (Rodd & Holland, 1990; Schachar, Sandberg, & Rutter, 1986).

Rather, they may rely “...on only a few highly visible motoric and contextual social

behaviors rather than a large number of variables in making their judgements” (Vlietstra,

1981, p. 604). In such cases the high activity level and/or poor reputation of a child,

factors that were both referred to earlier, may play a significant role in staff decision-

making. Stebbins (1971) had also found that teachers in classrooms sometimes make

mistakes in defining misconduct, which he saw as unavoidable in the immediacy of

events.

More recently, Arnold, McWilliams, and Arnold (1998) examined teachers’ methods of

child-discipline, especially lax practices, in child care centres. They define laxness as

“...allowing rules to go unenforced, giving in to children’s coercive behavior, and coaxing or

begging children to behave” (p. 277). In their findings they suggest “...that teachers who

do not set and enforce clear, firm, consistent, and appropriate classroom rules are likely to

face higher levels of misbehavior, which may trigger coercive cycles” (Arnold et al., 1998,

p. 284).

Elsewhere, it has been suggested that attempts by a child care centre staff member to be

consistent throughout the day, or over any number of days, may be thwarted by his or her

uneven workload in a typical early childhood classroom (Barnes, 1996; Holloway, 1991).

That workload has been seen as making escalating demands on staff members’ time

(Mellor, 1988; O'Keefe, 1997), which has included calls for them to become greater

advocates for social change (e.g., Piscitelli, 1994; Sims & Hutchins, 1996). As a result of

busy or disrupted schedules and the number of children in the group, Reid (1993)

contended that a staff member “...cannot really take effective disciplinary action each time

the child acts up” (p. 253). It has long been recognised that a failure to implement

consistent management techniques may be enough to reinforce occurrences of the

problem behaviour, which is then further reinforced by “nattering”, or the making of empty

threats (Eibl-Eibesfeldt, 1974).

Staff may plan for consistency of response, and link those responses to a theory of child

development or to reflect the centre’s goals for the children’s learning (Johnson, 1988;

McLean, 1988), or classroom management (Stebbins, 1971). It has been noted

elsewhere, however, that intentions do not always match ensuing action (e.g., Kean, 1997;

Rodd & Holland, 1990). In a study of British teachers, for example, Corrie (1994)

observed that “...in the course of explaining their pedagogy, teachers contradicted

themselves often, but they seemed unaware of this happening. Elements of knowledge

96

seemed to be stored in isolation rather than as a cohesive framework” (no page number).

It has also been acknowledged that individuals may vary in their interpretation of problem

behaviours and may not always be consistent in their own reactions over time or in

comparison to other staff members (Rogosa, Floden, & Willett, 1984).

2.3.5.2 Staff:staff interactional processes

One of the issues encountered in child care settings employing staff with different styles,

experiences and types of training, is maintaining group consistency in centre-wide

teaching and behaviour management strategies (Farmer, 1988; McLean, 1988; Mules,

1993). In his assessment of similar behaviour settings, Wicker (1987) contended that

“through a series of interactions, including small- and large-scale negotiations, staff

members will adjust their individual interpretations, actions, and working knowledge

(recollections) to be more congruent with those of their co-workers and clients” (p. 629).

Wicker suggested that a number of negotiating and adjusting cycles may be needed

before a program was operating smoothly and the time required depended on a number of

factors including compatibility of staff members. As mentioned earlier, the QI&AS

incorporates negotiation and adjustment cycles that must be completed in the process of

successful accreditation.

Among points seen by Wicker (1987) as slowing the process of reaching agreement, were

large numbers of staff and a diversity of causal explanations, or cause maps, of

behaviours and events held by different staff members. As mentioned above, for child

care centres the difficulties are likely to be increased by the diversity of staff qualifications

and the variety of their experience (Mules, 1993). The situation is further aggravated by

the imposition of shift work over the long day, which enforces changes to combinations of

staff working together with the same children on the same day. The frequent use of

casual staff to relieve or replace permanent staff (Horin, 1998; O’Brien, 1997),

exacerbated by the renowned high staff turnover rate (Bennett, 1991; Hayden, 1996;

Jackson, 1996), increases the number of permutations of staff over the longer term.

Conflicts among staff, which have long been recognised as almost inevitable in child care

centres (e.g., Sebastian, 1986; Sorensen, 1997), may also slow or temporarily stall the

process of trying to reach consensus. Such conflicts arise from perceptions of unequal

workloads or someone not doing their job properly (McLean, 1988), ideological differences

about service goals (Anonymous, 1996; Wellisch, 1996), or dissatisfaction with the director

or management of the service (Werner, 1996). Ekholm et al. (1995), in their study of child

97

care centres in Sweden, also identified staff who held “…a more negative view of

challenge in work” (p. 103) as an important factor in staff:staff relations.

Singularly, or in combination, these findings background the difficulties faced by staff trying

to maintain consistency of programming and discipline within a child care centre. Relevant

to the current study are the findings of Hedin et al. (1997) that in centres with strained and

negative climates, children “…showed more noncooperative behavior [and] engaged in

more conflict…” (p. 187). It appears, however, that the process of reaching consensus,

and maintaining a relaxed and positive climate, is enhanced if the staff comprised a

relatively small number of members who had been together in a stable working

relationship for some time (Ekholm et al., 1995).

2.3.5.3 Staff:child interactional processes

Apart from responding to child behaviours, the main purpose of most staff:child

interactions usually relate to the implementation of centre goals. The success of the

endeavour, particularly if utilising specific educational approaches, depends on the

teaching style of the staff member (Moore, 1986). According to Goodfellow (1994) style

“…‘invites’ children to conduct themselves in particular ways” (no page number). Garland

and White (1980) provided a general example of teaching style from observations of

classroom interactions in their study of British nursery schools. They reported that settings

providing opportunities for children to remain with an activity for the duration of the child’s

interest, “...appeared to include a ‘permitting adult’ ” (p. 55). A little more detail of the

effects of style was provided by Scott-Little and Holloway (1992) who contended that in the

American centres they had studied, “caregivers who are less authoritarian, less critical,

and more democratic seem to promote positive social development” (p. 596). The

implications being that staff who are controlling and critical may promote negative

behaviours in children.

Ekholm et al., (1995) identified staff interaction with children as engendering a “rearing

climate”, which could be delineated as “future-focussed”, “present-focussed”, or

“combined” (p. 103). Future-focussed approaches were characterised by staff who

wanted the children “…to try many different roles, relations and activities to prepare them

for the future” (p. 103). On the other hand, the present-focused approaches were

characterised by staff who “…seemed to organize daily activities to run as smoothly as

possible for the adults here and now…” (p. 103). The combined group was seen as being

between the future and present approaches. A later study found a present-focussed

rearing climate to be a clearer indicator of the likelihood of children’s problem behaviours

98

occurring than the strained work climate and negative staff attitudes to challenge

mentioned earlier (Hedin et al., 1997).

2.3.5.4 Classroom rules for children

Added to the intra-staff difficulties of formulating and maintaining consistent approaches

are issues associated with establishing and enforcing rules for the children. Heins (1996)

provided one of the few reviews on the topic relevant to early childhood, which he based

on a “...theoretical and very limited research basis” (p. 7). With a focus on children’s

linguistic and cognitive capacity to understand rules, he emphasised the difficulties

involved with applying them to children under the age of five years. In particular, Heins

cited the young child’s view of morality and difficulties they may have understanding the

intent of others, a point noted earlier (e.g., Courtney & Cohen, 1996; Crick, 1995; Crick &

Dodge, 1996; Dodge, 1980). Heins also suggested that ambiguous forms of adult non-

verbal communication displayed concurrently with the imposition of rules might lead

children to misinterpret messages given by staff.

2.3.5.5 Developmentally appropriate practices

To this point, a number of issues have been raised in relation to the child’s levels of

maturation, which identifies child development as an important consideration. The matter

has received widespread recognition in recent years, with much discussion about

programs in children’s services focussed on the concept of developmentally appropriate

practice (DAP)4 (Bredekamp, 1986; Bredekamp, 1987; Bredekamp, 1997; Bredekamp &

Copple, 1997). The original DAP approach reflected many Piagetian principles (Clyde,

1995; Fleer, 1995) and required staff to place more emphasis on child-centred readiness

for learning than on teacher-directed techniques (Charlesworth, 1998; Corrie, 1999;

Lubeck, 1998b). The underlying belief was that children exposed to a variety of

stimulating materials and events would be attracted to explore the environment (Fowell &

Lawton, 1992). Staff members were required to provide a program structure that allowed

the child to engage in self-directed exploration and relationships with adults, peers,

materials and equipment. The aim was to facilitate concrete experiences, allowing

children to construct knowledge through his or her own actions (Bredekamp, 1987;

Charlesworth et al., 1993). Some investigators have noted that, while children need to be

4 Comprising program content and implementation guidelines, the strategy was originally conceived as support for a voluntary children’s services accreditation scheme in the United States of America. The scheme had been designed to combat the growing trend towards a more teacher-directed academic curriculum in American preschools and child care centres. In particular, DAP sought the elimination of rote learning and the use of worksheets in early childhood settings.

99

challenged, requirements for skills above the children’s level could cause the child to

become frustrated, conflictual, defiant, and aggressive (e.g., Dinwiddie, 1994; McKay,

1988; Stephen, 1993).

However, it had been noted that “there is little, if any, research conducted in classrooms

with young children documenting the relationship between potential stressors and

academic, psychological, and social behaviour” (Burts, Hart, Charlesworth, & Kirk,

1990, p. 410). Burts et al. (1990) undertook an investigation to determine a

relationship, using a questionnaire for teachers, based on DAP statements, and two

observational checklists. One checklist was used to assess practice and the other for

assessing child stress, which included “daydreaming”, “complains of feeling sick”, and

“physical hostility/fights”, although no rationale was provided for linking these

descriptors to academic stress.

Based on two days of observation, the investigators claimed to have found significantly

more children’s stress behaviours in the developmentally inappropriate classroom than

in the developmentally appropriate classroom. They did, however, advise caution

interpreting the results because of an “...inability to disentangle teacher effects from

classroom structure/curriculum effects...” (p. 417), amongst several other points.

Nevertheless, in another study, Charlesworth et al. (1993), citing Burts et al. (1990),

reiterated the claim that “...inappropriate practices have been observed to be

associated with higher levels of student stress behaviors in kindergarten classrooms”

(p. 256).

Such research supporting DAP has been criticised in America on methodological grounds

(e.g., Lubeck, 1998a; Lubeck 1998b). Other investigators questioned the rigidity of both

the content and the process of implementing DAP with children in different situations and

from diverse cultures (e.g., Block & Block, 1981; Jipson, 1991; Kessler, 1991).

In Australian literature there appears to have been little research or discussion on the

subject until the mid-1990s. Despite the lack of early debate, Fleer (1995) claimed that the

concept of DAP had been widely adopted. This was evidenced by the QI&AS, where Part

B stipulates that routine activities and programs in general must be developmentally

appropriate. It is noted, however, that not all early childhood educators in Australia

accepted DAP specifications (e.g., Clyde, 1995; Stonehouse, 1994). The core of the

objections had already been raised in the United States by Fowell and Lawton (1992), and

was just as applicable to Australian children’s services. Of particular relevance was their

100

observation that “in a society that promotes individualism and diversity, there is rarely one

right way to meet one’s objectives. Yet, the current set of criteria for appropriate early

childhood practice implies, at the very least, that one perspective is more ‘right’ than

others” (p. 71).

On the basis of its Piagetian foundation, DAP has been criticised in Australia for failing to

consider alternative theories of child development, or mediating cultural and socio-cultural

factors (e.g., Dockett, 1995; Elliott, 1995; Fleer, 1995; Lambert, 1995). In addition, DAP

has been targeted in feminist post-structuralist analysis as reinforcing the process of

gendering because it “...inadequately conceptualised the social and cultural constituents of

learning” (MacNaughton, 1995, p. 36). Of particular relevance to the present work, DAP

has also been criticised for being too simplistic, and failing to consider the significance of

the child’s setting and context (Stonehouse, 1994).

In 1997 a revised edition of DAP was published (Bredekamp & Copple, 1997) to answer

some of the earlier criticisms. In a revised position statement on DAP, the National

Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC), in America, dispelled the

notion of having a single right way or wrong way of implementing practice (Bredekamp,

1997). The NAEYC emphasised the likely variations in individual rates and timing of

development and addressed socio-cultural factors, including the role of teachers and

relationships with families. Agreeing with earlier criticism that it was not possible to specify

appropriate practice for every child in every situation (e.g., Block & Block, 1981; Jipson,

1991; Kessler, 1991), Bredekamp (1997) concluded that “...practices are more likely to be

appropriate if teachers employ a variety of approaches targeted to individuals’ strengths

and needs rather than expect all the children to do the same thing at the same time” (p.

39). Instead of being restricted to DAP, early childhood educators in Australia have

suggested broadening the approach to one that is “...humanly, culturally and individually

appropriate...” (Stonehouse, 1994, p. 76).

Before the revision, and in contrast to the Burts et al. (1990) and Charlesworth et al.

(1993) studies, Hestenes et al. (1993) investigated what they called, “children’s emotional

expression in child care centres varying in quality”. They found that “...the appropriateness

of the caregiving, not the appropriateness of activities in the child care centre, significantly

predicted the proportion of positive affect” (p. 295). Similarly, Dunn (1993), looking at a

range of distal and proximal features of child care centres, found that the qualities

identified as predictors of children’s development “...were measures describing the

caregiver” (p. 189). Connectedly, the importance of staff in relation to child stress was

101

reinforced by the director of a Sydney-based centre who, when commenting on the effects

of high staff turnover, also focussed on staff:child interactions as the key factor, stating

We believe that the highest contributing factor to quality care is the staff. Happy, motivated and energetic staff will provide a high quality program. They will also provide interactions that extend the child’s learning without pressure or humiliation and let the child know they are respected for who they are, not what they can do. The opposite occurs with staff who are not happy and motivated. They may still plan appropriate experiences, but their interactions are likely to suffer. (Azar & Tansey, 1995, p. 11)

It had been recognised for some time that inappropriate staff expectations of children’s

behaviour and abilities could be a source of problems in the classroom. In particular, it

was noted that too high or too low levels of expectations could cause the children to

become bored with the activity (Davidson, 1980; Youcha & Wood, 1997), leading to further

problem behaviours (Saifer, 1993). The task for staff has always been to ensure that

problem behaviours are minimised by the use of individualised planning for children.

2.3.6 Summary of environmental influences

Most of the research concerned with building design, layout of rooms and definition of

activity areas has focussed on the cognitive and social development of children.

Similarly, matters associated with structural and cultural factors, particularly DAP, have

mainly been investigated from the perspective of appropriate cognition and

socialisation. Unlike studies of the concept of out-of-home care, and innate or learned

characteristics of children, which frequently focus on the potential for negative child

outcomes, few investigations of environmental influences on children have examined

the influence of physical, social, structural, and cultural components of the environment

on the production of problem behaviours. When child behaviour problems have been

mentioned it has most often been as a secondary issue rather than of primary concern,

and as a consequence of casual observation rather than data-based conclusions.

It also appears that the need for a number of physical and structural features is

consistently mentioned in texts and reports on the basis of adult aesthetic preferences,

intuitive worth, or other adult values that have little support from research findings.

These include aspects of lighting, noise, soft furnishings, cosy corners, privacy, waiting

time and time/space qualities of transitions. Some of these features have attained such

a level of acceptance that they have already been accorded the status of lore in

checklists for quality care, for example, the ECERS and the QI&AS.

A number of other social, structural, and cultural factors concerned with perceived

102

aspects of quality care have been well-researched overseas but not in Australia, and

findings are not always relevant to Australian conditions. For example, unlike many

early childhood services overseas, Australian child care centres have been subject to

extensive regulations governing physical facilities and many aspects of structure,

including group sizes and adult:child ratios, over many years. Although a few

exceptions existed in the mid 1990s (Horin, 1996), these regulations and the advent of

the QI&AS helped establish and maintained the provision of comparatively high

standard of centre-based child care. At the same time, there have been both regulatory

and funding requirements to employ staff trained in early childhood education, care, and

nursing. Although many of these regulations and requirements vary from state to state,

and, in New South Wales in particular, have been subject to several reviews over the

past decade (Ball, 1997; Bryson, 1996; Huntsman, 1989; Wangmann, 1988), they still

provide Australian centres with a mix and level of trained staff that is unique across

much of the world. The relatively high level of skill and understanding demonstrated by

the majority of staff in centres, and the appropriateness of programs for children, is

attested to by the high number of centres that have been accredited (Commonwealth

Department of Health and Family Services, 1998). Therefore, while overseas

investigations highlight a number of critical structural and cultural issues, related to staff

training, group size, programs and other organisational issues, the findings may be of

limited utility when transposed to Australian centres.

2.4 Conclusions about overview of investigations into UCBs

To review literature relevant to the current investigation, consideration was given to two

broad areas of research related to the problem behaviours of young children. The first

area included investigations into the behavioural consequences of salient within-child

characteristics, representing components of the child’s psychological habitat. Despite

evidence of considerable disagreement in many areas, about methodologies and the

validity of findings, the literature relating to within-child characteristics generally suggested

that a range of factors associated with the child’s nature and nurture may endow him or

her with a propensity to manifest certain behaviours quantitatively and qualitatively

different to other children. The range of natural and demographically imposed

characteristics, suggested as possible influences on children’s behaviour, was found to be

extensive. Similarly, the apparent strength of effect of various imposed conditions or

states on individual children was also acknowledged to be in a wide range from no effect

to deterministic. Although there appears to be broad agreement amongst investigators

that the child’s behaviour at any point will also be influenced differentially by the setting

and situation, few studies specify the mechanics or directionality of that influence at the

103

child:environment interface.

The second area of literature reviewed included studies of environmental factors,

catalogued under physical, social, structural, and cultural components, which are believed

to influence the behaviour of children. A large section of the literature was concerned with

the impact of out-of-home child care on children’s behaviour and development.

Acknowledged as a highly contentious, and sometimes emotive area, it was found that

some researchers, and a section of the general community, view the concept of out-of-

home child care as being a negative influence on child development and complicit in the

subsequent emergence of problem behaviours. In contrast, a variety of studies have

disputed the overall negative findings, instead suggesting positive influences for some

children. Others investigations have found out-of-home care to have no apparent impact

on the behaviour and development of many children. A feature of most contributions to

the both sides of the argument has been the treatment of out-of-home care as a concept

rather than a physical building with social, structural and cultural components. In general,

the debate about the effects of child care on child development has been characterised by

almost total omission of consideration of differences in the environments of individual

centres or the psychological habitats of individual children.

In contrast, studies that have examined features of settings and situations relevant to child

care centres have suggested a wide range of environmental factors that have a capacity

to influence the behaviour of young children. These factors include attendance patterns,

the structure and developmental appropriateness of programs, open spaces, well-

defined activity areas, the characteristics of some activities and objects, staff teaching

styles and group-management techniques, and the nature of peer group associations.

In most cases, however, the environmental trigger that transforms child propensity and

situational capacity into the manifestation of problem behaviour had not been

examined. Frequently, it appeared, there has been an assumption that the fusion of

within-child and behaviour setting characteristics leads to a reaction in the form of

problem behaviour. Consequently, these factors, and matters related to them, were

incorporated into the data collection and analysis strategy for special attention in the

current study.

104

CHAPTER THREE

Methodology

3.1 The site of the investigation

The child care centre selected for the current study is situated in a residential suburb

not far from a school and small shopping precinct. The area, located approximately

twenty kilometres from a large regional city, was developed as a housing estate and an

adjacent light industrial park over the preceding fifteen years. The local population is

increasing, although many workers commute to the city or nearby towns.

Set on a corner block of land, the single story elongated rectangular building has a fully

fenced outside play area at the rear. Figure 3.1 shows the relative position and size of

the building to outdoor play areas and surrounds. Balancing the light but steady activity

on roads along the front and to the left of the site are little used vacant blocks of land to

the right and rear which, at the time the current investigation was undertaken, were both

thickly covered with well established trees and undergrowth.

Figure 3.1 Site plan of the child care centre

105

The centre operates on a “long-day-care” basis, from 7.30am until 5.30pm each

weekday, closing down briefly over the Christmas and New Year period. It had

originally been designed and constructed for the enrolment of 40 children per day.

Later extensions had increased the number of licensed places for children to more than

50 per day organised into three groups: a nursery group for babies under 2 years, 2

year old “toddlers”, and children aged 3-5 years nominated as “preschoolers”. A

downturn in demand for child care over 18 months preceding the current investigation

had seen enrolments drop to less than 75% of the centre’s capacity.

Although the total number of staff had been reduced with falling enrolments, remaining

staff membership and both the philosophy and structure of the care and education

programs had remained stable over a number of years. This was an important

consideration in determining the selection of the centre for observation of the children.

Written programs of activities together with goals and assessments are produced on a

weekly basis. Records of children’s development are maintained and special programs

are implemented within the centre when a need is identified. At the time of the current

investigation, for example, enrolments included one child diagnosed with autist

spectrum disorder. His regular attendance with the group was facilitated with the help

of a special support worker in addition to regular staff.

The normal daily structure for the preschoolers’ group comprises 20 of the 22 major

group-based behaviour settings listed in Table 3.1. Free play, or more specifically the

free choice of staff-selected and provisioned activities, is accorded the children in six

settings. The remaining 14 settings are devoted to specific purposes such as

mealtimes, transitions, bathroom routines and circle-time, during which children are

under the constant direction of staff. Two settings (#9 and #21) are provided as indoor

free play alternatives to outdoor free play during periods of inclement weather.

Day-to-day administration of the programs for all children is the responsibility of the

director, who answers to the centre’s management committee, which comprises

parents, community members, and representatives of the city council. Staff and

management had successfully undertaken the QI&AS process, which was another

important consideration in selection of the centre for study.

Among other advantages, accreditation entitles the centre to receive government

funding to help offset some operational costs. The greater part of the centre’s income

106

derives from fees paid by the attending children’s parents.

Table 3.1 The 22 major behaviour settings5

# Settings 1 Scheduled nursery free play (am) 2 Scheduled indoor free play (am) 3 Pre-morning tea group activities 4 Pre-morning tea toileting routine 5 Morning tea 6 Transition to outdoor play (am) 7 Scheduled outdoor free play (am) 8 Transition to indoor activities (am) 9 Unscheduled inside free play (am)

10 Pre-lunch group activities 11 Pre-lunch toileting routine 12 Lunchtime 13 Scheduled indoor free play (pm) 14 Children’s afternoon sleep 15 Pre-afternoon tea group activities 16 Pre-afternoon tea toileting routine 17 Afternoon tea 18 Transition to outdoor play (pm) 19 Scheduled outdoor free play (pm) 20 Transition to indoor activities (pm) 21 Unscheduled inside free play (pm) 22 Scheduled nursery free play (pm)

Although operating under some financial constraint, the centre is well maintained and

equipped, with sufficient materials to support a wide variety of activities for the children.

Most of the equipment and materials used with the children is available from

commercial suppliers. The program of activities is recognisable as conforming to

culturally and developmentally appropriate practices for the age group of children, as

evidenced by successful accreditation. Health, safety, care, and education policies are

clearly stated and classroom rules are clearly and regularly verbalised to the children.

In addition to the program of activities provided by staff trained in early childhood

education, nursery staff members are trained in nursing and administer first-aid,

medications and general health care to all children whenever necessary. The centre

5 Courtney and Kowalski, (1995) nominated the arrival and departure of children as transitions between situations within the settings. Although the child's arrival certainly marks the time-space location of the beginning of a situation, there is no easily identifiable end point to the transition, except when the child leaves at the end of the day. Therefore, in the current study, arrivals and departures are not treated as transitions but as part of the normal entry and departure processes involving any setting or situation throughout the day.

107

also employs a cook to prepare morning tea, lunch, and afternoon tea for the children

each day. An optional sleep period in a quiet part of the centre is one of the scheduled

settings (#14) for those children who need to rest, a decision made by parents at the

time of enrolment. Therefore, ill health, hunger, or a lack of sleep, are not expected to

be a major confounding factor in the regular manifestation of UCBs.

While the kitchen is centrally located with servery window access to the preschoolers’

playroom, other areas for staff use are all situated away from the children. Figure 3.2

illustrates the floor plan of the centre and provides an approximate guide to the relative

size and location of rooms and play areas. The siting of rooms provides staff with

maximum opportunity for respite from the children during scheduled morning tea, lunch,

and afternoon tea breaks.

Figure 3.2 Floor plan of the child care centre

Although each classroom is self-contained with children’s equipment and toilet facilities,

there is easy access to all areas of the centre for adults. Large glass windows and the

open plan interior design provide good vision of all internal play spaces, toilets and to

the outside area. Unauthorised child access to specific areas or materials is minimised

by childproof locks fitted on external doors and gates, as well as kitchen and laundry

cupboards. Electric power points are equipped with safety switches and the only

electrical equipment accessible to children is the television and video-recorder when it

is in use. Demonstrated good work practices ensure that liquid spills are promptly

mopped up and associated policies minimise other risks of accidents involving children.

108

At the start of the day, all children are accommodated in the nursery section. Figure 3.3

shows a floor plan of the nursery that comprises two mirror-image sections that can be

divided by a folding partition. In each section a red-flecked grey carpeted area, roughly

circular in shape, is fixed to the floor in a manner that eliminated raised edges. The

remainder of the floor area is covered in vinyl. Most observations took place in the

general play area with the verandah being used on only two occasions. No

observations were made in the outdoor nursery area, cot rooms or entry area.

Figure 3.3 Floor plan of the nursery

The preschoolers’ playroom, in which most of the indoor observations were made, is a

large rectangular room with exposed roof supports, providing a high ceiling. Spaces

along the beams, between fluorescent lights and electric bar heaters were used for

hanging mobiles and samples of the children’s collage artwork. The beams as facilities

for display augment the relatively small amount of yellow brick and cream painted

plaster board wall area left by the large windows, open shelves, cupboards and doors.

A sketched floor plan of the preschoolers’ playroom is illustrated in Figure 3.4. A little

over half of the floor area has vinyl covering and is used for paint, chalk, playdough and

other activities with potentially “messy” outcomes. At specific times the chairs and

109

tables are rearranged on the vinyl floor covered section as a dining area for snacks and

lunch. Approximately 45% of the floor area is carpeted in three sections. The area

nearest the store is red, blue in the centre, and grey/green opposite the entry gate.

One carpeted section accommodates the book cupboard, two easy chairs and pillows.

A second forms the “home” area, which is equipped with scaled-down kitchen furniture,

appliances and plastic utensils, in addition to “dress-up” clothes. The third section is

used as the block area, which also accommodates the puzzle table and puzzle storage

shelves. The book, home, and construction areas were swapped over during the

observation period, and special activities settings, such as a hospital, were occasionally

added for a day. The book area was also used for all indoor circle-time activities.

Figure 3.4 Floor plan of the preschoolers’ playroom

The layout of the outdoor area, which is accessible to children through doors in the

preschoolers’ and toddlers’ playrooms, is illustrated in Figure 3.5. Separated from the

nursery outdoor area by a fence, the main playground measures 31x17 metres and is

shared between the preschool and toddler groups for most outdoor play sessions.

Ground cover comprises artificial grass on the main activity areas, clearly defined

pathways of pavers and concrete, barkchips beneath and around the low log-wall

enclosed wooden fort, and areas of bare earth for digging. The 2.4 metre high trellis-

walled enclosure had been set aside for future development and was not designated for

children’s use during the period of the observations. In addition to the screened and

roofed sandpit, more than 70 square metres of shading augment shelter from the sun

110

provided by trees and the verandah. A variety of outdoor play equipment, including

large plastic blocks, balance beams, sandplay accessories, hoops and a large one-

metre diameter climb-through ball, was made available from the store on a daily basis.

In summary, the centre operates at a nationally recognised accredited level of quality

with a stable program structure, staff and management. These characteristics suggest

that the environment would not be subject to extremes of variation on a day-to-day

basis. As such, the site appears eminently suitable for the investigation of

environmental influences on the behaviour of young children.

Figure 3.5 The outdoor play area

3.2 Organisation of the data collection

Application was made to the University of Newcastle’s Research Ethics Committee for

approval to undertake an open-ended interview with staff at the child care centre and

observe children in the classroom. Upon receipt of approval, a formal request was

delivered to the director of the child care centre, seeking support for participation in the

current study. After discussion and consultation with centre staff and members of the

management committee, access to the centre for the purpose of undertaking the

observations was provided to the author. A letter outlining the study (Appendix 1),

together with an “Agreement to Participate” form (Appendix 2), was provided for all staff

and parents of children attending the centre. The letters stressed that participation was

voluntary and that declining to participate in no way jeopardised employment for staff or

enrolment of children. All staff volunteered to participate.

111

3.2.1 The intended subjects

The data collection strategy required participation of the maximum number of children

aged 3-5 years who attended the child care centre on a regular basis between March

and September. The age group was selected for four main reasons. First, it comprised

the largest homogeneous group in attendance and had the potential to provide the most

children who shared similar environmental influences within the centre. Second,

children in this age-group could be expected to be moving out of the totally egocentric

stage of development, at least to a point where peers, staff, and the general culture as

well as structure of the program may be seen to exert some influence on children’s

behaviour. Thus possibly rendering the children more susceptible to a wider variety of

environmental influences within the child care centre and affording more opportunities

for observation of any impact on their behaviour. Third, the general level of physical

and cognitive development of this age-group could be expected to lead them into a

wider range of activities than those undertaken by younger children. Thus providing

opportunity for observation of a wider variety of influences from the environment than

may be afforded by younger children. Fourth, many of the group would be starting

formal schooling the following year and, therefore, should already be exhibiting the

adverse behaviours previously assigned by school teachers and researchers to children

who have attended child care.

3.2.2 The observation period

The period between March and September was selected to minimise the extremes of

seasonal weather variations and to fit between the end of summer daylight saving in

autumn and the beginning of daylight saving in the following spring. Although the

author found no studies specifying either matter as having a significant environmental

influence on young children’s behaviour, it appeared prudent to minimise the number of

possible global external variables.

At the same time, it was acknowledged that the autumn-winter period could render

children more prone to the manifestation of UCBs as a result of greater susceptibility to

minor illnesses that disrupt regular attendances. However, the author found no

evidence to support the notion of differentiated seasonal attendance patterns of children

in child care centres.

Another reason for selecting the March starting point was an expectation that most

children would commence enrolments in late January to early February after the

traditional summer holiday period. A mid-March start to the study was in agreement

112

with Del’Homme et al. (1994) and Fox and Field (1989) who proposed that at least six

weeks be provided as a period for children to become accustomed to the routine and

rules of the centre, and to establish relationships with peers, before data are collected.

3.2.3 Staff members' participation

With two objectives, the author conducted informal open-ended individual interviews

with all seven staff in direct and regular contact with the children aged 3-5 years. One

objective was to identify any specific requirements or expectations that individual staff

had for the observation schedule. It was anticipated that a clear understanding of staff

expectations would assist the author with the logistics of data collection in the child care

centre.

The other objective was to provide individual staff members with a private opportunity to

raise any questions or voice any concerns they may have held about the study.

Investigators as early as the 1960s had recognised that the role of the observer, as

perceived by those being observed, may impact on the data (Vidich, 1969).

Specifically, McCall (1969) contended that

The observer may be perceived as a critical outsider, a management spy, or a close friend, and the subjects’ conduct may be modified accordingly. Similar effects may result from various personal characteristics of the observer, such as sex, race, education level, or snobbishness. (p. 128)

It was anticipated that an opportunity to voice concerns prior to the investigation would

help staff minimise variations in their normal behaviours with children caused by the

presence of a non-initiating observer in the classroom. At each interview the author

stressed that the current study regarded staff as a part of one of four environmental

influences in relation to children’s behaviour and that staff were not the primary focus of

the observations.

No professional or personal information about themselves or their views about the

children in their care was solicited from staff. It was expected that staff would exhibit at

least some of the personal and professional characteristics portrayed in the literature

and discussed in Chapters One and Two. Further, that any staff behaviours emanating

from those characteristics would, in conjunction with other facets of the setting, form

part of the centre’s structure and culture.

3.2.4 Children’s participation

The author did not stipulate any specific qualities or characteristics of children as a

113

condition of their participation in the current study other than being enrolled in the

preschoolers’ group. The children were not subjected to examinations or analysis of

any sort before, during, or after the observations. It was expected that each child would

have unique combinations of personality, temperament, biological functioning, and

learned experiences, among other factors, that would contribute to his or her

psychological habitat and, subsequently, impact on situations to produce different

behaviours. An underlying assumption of this work was that, while such differences are

likely to effect the intensity of the child’s relationship with the environment, they are less

likely to create total immunity or overt sensitivity to influences common to all children.

The same approach was applied to individual children’s overall developmental level and

cognitive development in particular. Therefore, the participating children were not

stratified by language, understanding of basic concepts, or other forms of testing.

3.2.5 Parents

Parents volunteered themselves and their children as participants mainly as a result of

the letter handed to them (Appendix 1) and their knowledge of staff and centre

management support for the study. The author made no contact with parents, and no

parent made contact with the author prior to the start of the observations. No

demographic, family background or other personal information about their child was

solicited from parents.

3.3 The observations

The observation schedule, designed to collect data on the volunteered children,

identified as “focus-children” was preceded by 10 days of orientation, practice

commentary, and trials of recording equipment in the child care centre.

3.3.1 Trial period

Spread over four weeks, the 10 practice days also provided opportunity for staff and

children to become accustomed to the observer’s non-initiating presence, as suggested

almost 30 years ago by Dean, Eichhorn, and Dean (1969). In addition, the orientation

period allowed the observer to familiarise himself with the routines of the centre and to

learn to recognise and identify by name all involved children.

Samples of trial data were transcribed, surveyed and analysed in the manner planned

for the main data collection period. A number of linguistic and stylistic inconsistencies

and ambiguities were identified and rectified before the full schedule began. In addition,

the inclusion of regular verbalised time-checks with the recorded narrative was found to

114

be useful in verifying the timing and duration of events. All data collected during the

period was discarded and none included in the final results.

3.3.2 The observation schedule

Observations were scheduled for every second day, providing a “Monday-Wednesday-

Friday-Tuesday-Thursday” pattern every fortnight. Alternate days were planned to

minimise the impact of temporary external environmental influences that may extend

over 48 hour periods, such as mild childhood illnesses. The pattern also provided the

observer with an alternate rest-day on which to review recorded audio-tapes and

maintain equipment.

Those children who were enrolled for one day each week were scheduled to be

observed for the one day, those who attended for two days were scheduled for two, and

so on. As children differed from each other in the days and number of days attended

each week, the peer group was composed of different children each day.

Consequently, implementing proportional representation of children in the data

collection process ensured that no focus-child was observed more than once with

exactly the same social group. Thus each child would be seen in the full range of

environmental conditions that he or she normally experienced rather than being

observed in only a part of the range or within the same condition more than once.

On the morning of each scheduled observation day, three children were selected from

the list of eligible participants. The first to arrive was nominated as the focus-child for

that day and the names of the other two were returned to the eligibility list to be

included in the next appropriate observation session. To maximise the range of

observational opportunities, data were collected on the focus-child by the same

observer from the time of the child’s arrival until he or she left the centre at the end of

the day. This was similar to the strategy used by Carta, Greenwood, and Robinson

(1987), however, the observer in the current investigation observed the child in all

behavioural situations, except sleeptime, and took no scheduled breaks.

3.3.3 Recording the data

In a further departure from the study by Carta et al. (1987), which used time-sampling,

data in the current investigation were chronicled by a continuous commentary on all the

focus-child’s activities. Continuous verbal recording of observations on audio-tape has

been a recognised data collection strategy for some years (e.g., Jordan, 1963; King,

1978; Laursen & Hartup, 1989). Powell, Martindale, and Kulp (1975) contended that a

115

continuous measure “…represents the ‘true’ state of nature” (p. 466) as it contains all

examples of the behaviour, unlike interval time sampling which, they suggested, leads

to under- or over-estimations of what actually takes place. Similarly, Barker (1963b)

had earlier argued that “a verbal narrative has great technical advantages as a

recording system for stream of behavior phenomena….narrative is continuous, as

behavior is continuous…” (p. 20).

The commentary was recorded on a concealed Radio Shack N26 cassette tape-

recorder using an electronic “lapel” mini-microphone worn by the observer. The

purpose of concealing the recorder and microphone was to minimise its potential for

distracting children from their normal course of activities. Staff and children’s parents

were made aware of the tape-recording. Whether adults told any children of the

recorder is not known, but as the observer’s strategy was not to initiate contact, he did

not inform any children directly.

The advantages and disadvantages of using a tape-recorder in research, discussed by

Thompson (1996), were acknowledged. None of the informal interviews with staff was

tape-recorded, which eliminated the foregrounding of the recorder as “...a mediating

factor of particular significance” (p. 1). There was no reliance on recording verbal

exchanges between staff and/or children in the play areas, which eliminated the need to

interpret the impact of external stimuli on adult and/or child activities from a tape-

recording of the event. The only voice deliberately recorded was that of the observer.

Similar to data collection in the study by Lamb, Easterbrooks, and Holden (1980), the

observer described not only all the activities of the focus-child but also the initiating

actions and responses of peers as well as the responses of staff relating to the focus-

child. The current investigation used a narrative technique akin to that employed by

Laursen and Hartup (1989), in that “...observers were trained to dictate narrative

accounts of the children’s social interactions into cassette tape recorders.... Observers

were instructed to minimize inferences and focus upon overt actions. All social contacts

were described continuously...” (p. 285).

The approach was comparable to that used in King’s (1978) classroom study, as well

as that by observers in the Garland and White (1980) study of children and staff in

nursery schools. Where expressions of emotion were judged to be an integral part of

an exchange, the continuous narrative style allowed the observer to record comments

or notes specifically as impressions rather than fact.

116

The use of plain English language narrative to describe events as they occurred also

allowed easier compilation of thick description (Gall, Borg, & Gall, 1996; Stake, 1995)

and the post-observation construction of vignettes (Erickson, 1986), which facilitated

analysis and interpretation of the data. As mentioned in Chapter One, it also freed the

observer from the need to memorise codes and the task of allocating behaviours into

predetermined categories concurrent with ongoing activities, thus increasing the

accuracy of data (Berk, 1971). Where necessary, sketches of equipment layout

supplemented the information recorded on the audio-tapes.

While the sensitivity of the mini-microphone was able to record the observer’s subdued

voice and whispers, recorded background noise was kept to a minimum. By holding a

hand or notebook over his mouth, the observer in the current investigation was able to

maintain a relatively unobtrusive, or consistently intrusive, presence. Without the need

to write regular notes or complete checklists at set intervals, the observer was able to

watch the entire stream of the focus-child’s activities without forced breaks. Therefore,

none of the focus-child’s actions or interactions was omitted.

3.3.4 The observer

Stokols (1990), from the perspective of instrumental investigations, which he associated

with examination of the controlling aspects of physical environments by architects,

noted that “research activities are assumed to be value-neutral and separate from the

social dynamics observed and recorded within particular settings” (p. 642). In reality,

however, neutrality of the observer’s influence on the activities of children aged 3-5

years could not be assumed. Consequently, the current study acknowledged that the

observer would become part of the environment of the child care centre. The author

agreed with Repp, Nieminen, Olinger, and Brusca (1988) and Schwartz and Schwartz

(1969) that the observer's presence would probably influence the creation of situations

and/or could detract from the creation of situations for both staff and children. Rather

than try to identify and assess the magnitude of the influence, the observer

concentrated on maintaining a consistency of influence through a consistency of

presence, characterised by his relationship to both children and staff, the space he

occupied in the classroom, and even his mode of dress.

A number of studies have reported the observer’s role as being that of a non-

participant, to the extent of remaining completely apart from all activity even when

addressed by others (Bay-Hinitz et al., 1994). The apparent belief underlying the

strategy supposed that child and staff behaviours would be unaffected by an observer

117

who appeared completely detached from the activity. However, as pointed out 30 years

ago by Vidich (1969), when commenting on the observation of conflicts:

Neutrality even to the point of total silence is a form of reaction and not only will be considered as such by all parties to the conflict but also implies a specific attitude towards the issue - being above it, outside it, more important than it, not interested in it. Whatever meaning respondents attach to neutrality will, henceforth, be used as a further basis for response. (p. 84)

In general, the approach adopted by the observer in the present study was that of a

non-initiator of relationships. This position was modeled on what Hatch (1989)

described as reactive entry, meaning “he made himself available for interactions with

children without actively initiating contacts himself” (p. 260). When children initiated

contact, the observer responded as briefly as possible and minimised eye contact

during exchanges in the manner advocated by King (1978). Requests by children for

help, including those involving clothes or activities, were immediately referred to the

nearest staff member.

3.3.5 Validating observations

Validating observational data in open classrooms and the outdoor play area of a child

care centre presents particular difficulties in relation to maintaining naturalistic

characteristics of settings. Stake (1995) suggested the usefulness of a second

observer but, given the understanding that the single observer’s presence would

influence the activities both of children and staff, it can be assumed that two observers

would have greater impact. Further, it could be assumed that two people acting in the

same way in the confines of a playroom would be disproportionately noticeable to both

children and staff. Additionally, in relation to the data, Erickson (1986) contended that,

unless observers shared the same orientations towards the investigation, accounts of

the same events could vary as a result of their “…choosing differing kinds of verbs,

nouns, adverbs, and adjectives to characterize the actions that were described” (p.

120). Also using observations recorded onto audio-tape in a playroom, Smith and

Connolly (1980) contended that “it was not possible to obtain a realistic measure of

inter-observer agreement for this, since only the principal observer was both well-

acquainted with the children and virtually ignored by them” (p. 215). In the current

study, therefore, an alternative validation strategy was adopted to provide a reliability

check on the recording of children’s activities and staff responses.

Every month a 30-minute sample of a focus-child’s indoor activity was recorded by a

concealed fixed-position video-camera. The following day, the observer viewed the

118

video-film and recorded a commentary of the action. Comparison of narrative from the

video-sourced commentary was made with the “live” recording of the same scene from

the previous day. Results of the comparison provided an opportunity to check for

variations in detail that may have resulted from observer drift (Repp et al., 1988) or loss

of sensitivity to detail (McCall, 1969).

The limitations on the use of a fixed position camera compared to mobile equipment are

acknowledged, however, the preference was given to concealing the camera. Previous

work with children using video-film, undertaken by the author, had demonstrated that

children’s knowledge of the presence of a camera could have a profound influence on

their behaviour and undermine the naturalistic validity of the study.

3.4 Interpretation and analysis of data

As stated in Chapter One, the emphasis of the study was to press for an understanding of

the complex interrelationships between UCBs and environmental factors within a child

care centre. To facilitate interpretation of the interactions of individual children and to

account for different definitions of situations by the study population, the data were

transcribed into text for detailed examination.

3.4.1 Transcription of the data

The observer’s recorded commentaries of focus-children’s activities were transcribed

using a Sanyo Memo-Scribe TRC 8800. The Memo-Scribe’s tape counter, in

conjunction with time-checks recorded as part of the commentary, was used to

calculate the timing of events and the duration of behaviour sequences. Although not

intended to be precise, the procedure allowed the starting point of most interactions to

be specified to the nearest minute. The transcription was typed into a word processing

program and augmented with hand-written notes and information contained in sketches

of floor plans relating to daily activities.

To ensure anonymity of children and staff during the validation process and in the

production of this thesis, all staff members and children were provided with identities

comprising a combination of letters and numbers. Staff members were given “S”

prefixes to randomly assigned numbers from 01 to 19. Thus, the three staff members

who worked most frequently in the preschoolers’ playroom were identified as S01, S05,

and S10. Children enrolled in the preschooler’s group were assigned the prefix “PF”

(preschooler female) followed by a randomly selected number from 01 to 14, or “PM”

(preschooler male) followed by a randomly selected number from 01 to 25. Similarly,

119

children from the toddlers’ group were assigned the prefix “TF” or “TM”, and babies in

the nursery group assigned “BF” or “BM”. Other members of the children’s families

were also assigned letters to identify them, for example, mothers (M), fathers (F),

grandmothers (GM), and older sisters (OS), which were placed as suffixes to the child’s

identification code. Thus, the grandmother who nearly always collected PM21 in the

afternoon was identified as PM21GM.

3.4.2 Identification of UCBs

From the transcripts, identification of UCBs was based on staff responses to children’s

behaviour at the time it occurred. That is, the behaviour was classified as an UCB if it

was apparent that the staff member had been forced to interrupt another activity in

order to attend to the UCB. In the event that any staff member's action appeared

ambiguous to the observer, the staff member could be asked to clarify their intervention

as proactive or reactive without the need to justify or explain the action itself. The

strategy also ensured that only child behaviours deemed by staff as unwanted were

identified. Thus, to a very large extent, observer bias was eliminated from the initial

identification process.

To validate the process of identifying teacher actions as being in response to UCBs,

another earlier technique, as used by Fawl (1963), was applied in modified form. In the

current study, two experienced teachers, independent of the child care centre, were

each given identical transcripts of more than 22 hours of observations. They were

asked to identify and label what they thought were examples of child care centre staff

responding to UCBs. The two independent survey results were then compared to the

observer’s survey of the same transcripts. In addition, involved staff of the child care

centre were provided with a complete transcript of almost eight hours of observations of

one child over one day and invited to comment on the accuracy of the event statements

including teacher responses. Both strategies incorporated some characteristics of the

protocol involving discussion of interpretations by a panel of experts, suggested by

Stake (1995) and described as valuable but underused in triangulation.

3.4.3 Surveying the data

UCBs were identified by the nature of staff interventions and verified in the manner

described above. Two approaches were then taken to organise the data to facilitate

examination of environmental influences on children’s unwanted behaviours. The first

involved counting the number of occurrences of UCBs and assessing their frequencies

in various settings and situations. This process also considered relationships between

120

UCBs and days of observation, individual children, and gender of children. The second

approach used UCBs as a guide to the identification of streams of behaviour and

antecedent events that were examined to determine the influence of other

environmental factors. Details of the relationships contained in these sequences can

be studied and compared for patterning of environmental influences on children’s

unwanted behaviours across different observation days.

3.4.3.1 Time and duration of children’s attendances

To provide some relativity to comparison of the number of UCBs across children and

days of observation, and as a necessary preliminary to establishing rates of frequency

for UCBs in different settings and situations, data on children’s attendance times were

examined and tabulated.

3.4.3.2 Counts and frequencies of UCBs

A simple count of UCBs was undertaken for each day of observation and each focus-

child. Total numbers of UCBs were calculated for each of the 22 major settings. In

addition, the 22 major behaviour settings were compounded into seven broader groups

with common locations or purpose, as shown in Table 3.2. The compounding provided

opportunity to aggregate data as an aid to facilitating the initial identification of trends or

patterns of UCBs over the 54 days of observation. Counts were also undertaken to

identify initiators of UCBs, the targets of the behaviours, and any other peers who may

have been involved. In combination with attendance time data, frequency rates were

calculated for each of the days, settings, and children. The process of relating counts

and frequencies to environmental influences was enhanced by describing UCBs and

categorising them by type as well as identifying the locations in which they occurred.

Table 3.2 Components of major behaviour settings within compound settings

Compound groups Components from 22 regular behaviour settings

Indoor free play

AM nursery (#1), preschoolers' playroom (#2), and unscheduled (#9) PM nursery (#22), preschoolers' playroom (#13), and unscheduled(#21)

Outdoor free play AM (#7) & PM (#9) Formal groups Pre-morning tea (#3), pre-lunch (#10), pre-afternoon tea (#15) Bathroom routines Pre-morning tea (#4), pre-lunch (#11), pre-afternoon tea (#16) Mealtimes Morning tea (#5), lunch (#12), and afternoon tea (#17)

Transitions

AM indoor to outdoor (#6) and outdoor to indoor (#8) PM indoor to outdoor (#18) and outdoor to indoor (#20)

Sleep time Afternoon sleep time (#14)

121

3.4.3.3 Describing UCBs

In the current study, three separate but related forms of categorisation were used to

describe UCBs, each based on examination of relevant behaviour streams. The three-

part strategy was implemented for three main reasons. First, to minimise the

occurrence of ambiguities which have confounded the findings of some earlier studies

of child behaviour, as discussed in Chapter One. Second, to more easily relate the

occurrences of UCBs with common characteristics to specific environmental factors.

Third, to preserve sufficient detail of occurrences to facilitate comparisons between

settings and participants without maintaining an excessively long list of UCBs.

The first form used time-space locations and/or associated equipment and/or material

to indicate the sub-setting or situation in which the UCB occurred. The aim was to

provide information about the relative importance of setting and situational factors to the

occurrence of UCBs. These ranged from descriptions of general locations, such as the

bathroom or the preschoolers’ playroom, to more specific areas, such as those used for

block building, dining, or sandplay. Greater specificity was provided by allocating the

UCB to particular pieces of equipment or types of materials, including the woodwork

bench, hoops, and the collage materials trolley, which appeared to elicit similar types of

behaviour regardless of their physical location. Alternatively, the activity was nominated

as the identifier when the behaviour appeared independent of physical location and

equipment or materials. Examples included formal group- or circle-time and “time-out”.

The second form of categorisation described the focus-child’s physical and verbal

actions that had prompted staff intervention. These included hits, kicks, pushes,

complaints, making a noise, being defiant, and running within the nursery or the

preschoolers’ playroom.

The third form of categorisation relied on identifying types of peer associations

accompanying UCBs. As listed in Table 3.3, this approach separated physically and

verbally hostile, friendly, and accidental relationships between dyads, triads and groups,

as well as events involving no peers, into 11 sub-groups.

The peer association sub-categories were also combined with the data on initiators, co-

conspirators, and the target of UCBs, as well as other peers who may have been

involved in the action. Thus, the behaviour of a child who initiated a physically hostile

dyadic exchange by pulling a peer out of the nursery boat, for example, could at once

be categorised by facets of the physical, social, and structural environment. The staff

122

response to that behaviour supplied information about some of the cultural factors

operating at that particular time.

Table 3.3 Descriptions of peer relationships during occurrences of UCBs

Peer associations & UCBs No association Accidental contact Friendly dyads Friendly triads Friendly groups Verbally hostile dyads Physically hostile dyads Verbally hostile triads Physically hostile triads Verbally hostile groups Physically hostile groups

3.5 Streams of behaviour

Analysis and interpretation of relationships between environmental factors and the

occurrence of UCBs was undertaken using a modified technique for identifying streams

of behaviour, as originally described by Barker (1963b). Expanding the example

provided in Chapter One (Figure 1.1), Figure 3.6 illustrates the behaviour stream

analysis for PF03 in the time-space location of easel painting during the morning

preschoolers’ playroom indoor free play setting.

Although PF03 was in the easel setting for approximately eight minutes, she was

painting for less than a quarter of the time. The remainder was taken up with

preparation, a confrontation with TF02, onlooker activity, talking with friends, going to

the bathroom with friends, and putting her painting out to dry. The period produced two

UCBs. The first, which emanated from dripping paint, was related to isolated onlooker

behaviour which, in turn, was related to PF03 checking the location of TF02. The

second, prompted by PF03 leaving the easel and taking the paintbrush out-of-area, was

also related to peer-initiated activity. On this latter occasion, however, the UCB

resulted from a friendly encounter. Noticeably, the one hostile and apparently

unprovoked encounter with the toddler female did not elicit a response from a staff

member and, therefore, was not registered as an UCB. Nevertheless, examination of a

larger portion of the behaviour stream showed that the incident with TF02 was almost

certainly a continuation of an earlier confrontation between the two girls at the

playdough table, which provided a different perspective to the apparent lack of

123

provocation at the easel. Both incidents became relevant when a later confrontation

between the two did prompt staff intervention.

Figure 3.6 The behaviour stream for PF03 at easel painting

124

In general, all UCBs provided the starting point from which sequences of antecedent

events could be traced back to specific originating points in time and space. The

complete streams were identified as sequences of unwanted child behaviours (SUCBs)

and helped establish connections between facets of the environment and child

behaviours over and across related behaviour episodes.

3.6 Summary and conclusions about the methodology

To facilitate the investigation of environmental influences on the manifestation of

unwanted child behaviours in a child care centre, a setting for study was selected on

the basis of its relatively stable environment. Full details of the purpose of the study

and the data collection process were provided to individual staff members and each

family with children enrolled in the preschoolers’ room. All staff agreed to participate in

the study and more than 90% of parents using the setting agreed to their children being

observed. Therefore, neither the setting nor the subjects could be considered random

samples. However, neither the setting nor the subjects exhibited any specific traits that

would render any of the four main environmental factors particularly remarkable

compared to those likely to be found in other child care centres, or among the staff and

children attending them.

No experimental conditions were utilised in the current study. To maximise

preservation of the naturalistic setting during the data collection period the observer

adopted a non-initiating relationship with the children in the playrooms and outside play

area. In addition, an orientation period was implemented prior to commencement of

full-day observations of the children to provide all participants with an opportunity to

familiarise themselves with the process of data collection. In particular, the orientation

period was designed to help staff overcome any initial apprehension at being observed,

and permitted the children to satisfy much of their curiosity about the presence of the

observer and his role in the centre.

The observation process involved the selection of one child, known only to the

observer, to be observed from his or her time of arrival in the morning until he or she left

in the afternoon. The data collection strategy required the observer to record all details

of the child’s actions, and the related actions of others, concurrently and continuously in

plain English narrative on a concealed tape recorder. The strategy did not require the

observer to select specific activities for recording or to generalise actions into broad

and/or predetermined categories of behaviour. The use of continuous narrative was

intended to provide a thick description of all events for analysis and interpretation at a

125

later date. It was anticipated that unwanted child behaviours could be identified from

transcripts of the narrative, and antecedent events tracked across time and space

within the child care centre through examination of focus-children’s streams of

behaviour. Processes for maintaining the consistency and quality of the narrative were

implemented and strategies for validating the identification of UCBs were put in place.

Overall, the methodology adopted for the current study was designed to maximise the

collection of data on unwanted child behaviours exhibited by different children over an

extended period within the same setting, and concurrent environmental conditions. The

goal was to accumulate data that would facilitate the identification of shared patterns of

environmental influences on those behaviours. The outcome of the data collection

process provided a considerable amount of evidence to substantiate the unambiguous

identification of UCBs and the situations in which they developed. Salient physical,

cultural, social, and structural components of those situations, as well as temporal

influences, are evidenced in the following chapter.

126

CHAPTER FOUR

Evidence of unwanted child behaviours

4.1 Introduction

The data were surveyed to describe temporal, spatial and structural characteristics of

each day’s observations, as well as the details of observations across time and space

for each focus-child and focus-children grouped by gender. Transcripts of the

observation commentary were examined for evidence of UCBs and the results listed

under headings representing re-occurring features of the social, physical, structural,

and cultural components of the environment. Particular attention was given to specific

environmental factors identified in the literature as potentially influential in the

production of UCBs. Attention was also given to the sequences of behaviours within

behaviour streams of focus-children to provide a broader perspective of occurrences of

UCBs both temporally and spatially.

The graphs and tables presented in the current chapter provide raw figures on the

duration of observations and the number of UCBs across days, focus-children, settings,

and staff. Where relevant for further discussion, the raw figures have been augmented

with percentage and frequency calculations. Frequency rates are presented as an

average number of minutes between each occurrence of UCBs. Greater detail,

particularly in relation to individual focus-children, is contained in Appendices 3 to 7. As

a starting point, however, a brief assessment of the strategy for collecting data and

influence on the production of evidence for occurrences of UCBs is provided.

4.2 The study schedule

The investigation commenced in March 1998 as planned. After the 10 days of trials the

observation schedule was implemented, and during the following five months data were

collected on 30 different children over 54 days.

4.3 Stability of the setting

The overall structural framework of the centre’s operation remained consistent over the

period of investigation. Opening and closing times, and both the program and

sequence of major behaviour settings, were unchanged. Similarly, the culture of the

centre expressed through the philosophical approach to programming, child care and

127

education, including the implementation of rules, was maintained. Neither staffing

changes nor the occasional disputes between staff appeared to have any lasting effect

on the centre’s climate or specific impact on occurrences of UCBs.

4.3.1 Physical factors

Apart from some repairs to both the preschoolers’ playroom door to the outdoor play

area and a leaking section of roof, there were no changes to the child care centre

building during the observation period. Although plans were in hand to develop the

enclosure in the outdoor play area and to extend the area covered by bark chips, from

the fort to the enclosure, no work was carried out until after data collection was

completed.

During the period of observations, no new major pieces of equipment or greater variety

of supplies were introduced. Some new puppets, books and other smaller activity items

replenished and augmented existing stock, but these did not substantially alter the level

or type of resources available to children. One particular puppet and some model

dinosaurs were seen to influence some of the behaviours of some children over several

days but did not have any lasting effect during the observation period. Therefore, the

physical aspects of the environment could be said to have remained reasonably stable

throughout the investigation and had no apparent inconsistent influence on the

occurrences of UCBs overall.

4.3.2 Social factors

The majority of focus-children were enrolled for the duration of the observations, as

were a majority of the few peers who did not participate as focus children. Most

permanent departures from the centre occurred in the earlier part of the year, with a

number of new enrolments commencing (and leaving) at regular intervals. Overall,

however, a substantial core of preschoolers remained and established regular peer

group associates and membership of small groups that remained largely unchanged

throughout the period of observations. Therefore, the social environment could be

considered reasonably stable most of the time for most of the focus-children and no

inconsistencies could be identified as responsible for specific occurrences of UCBs.

4.3.3 Structural factors

The 22 major settings and the accompanying schedules were not subject to any

permanent change between March and September. There were no significant events

causing disruptions to programming over whole days and no excursions outside the

128

centre on any observation day. The ratio of boys to girls remained relatively stable and

although enrolments frequently increased and decreased group numbers stayed within

a narrow range from the beginning to the end of the observation period. Therefore, no

inconsistencies in the structural component of the environment could be identified as

exerting an influence on the occurrence of UCBs.

4.3.4 Cultural factors

Approximately half-way through the observation period the director resigned and the

senior teacher was appointed to take charge of the day-to-day operation of the centre in

his place. The resignation of the director was not due to any conflict with staff or

management, and the appointment of the senior teacher as the new director did not

appear to generate any opposition amongst other staff. Separately, a few tensions

between some staff members did arise in the latter half of the observation period but

these appeared to be within the range of relatively “normal” and inevitable staff:staff

relationship problems in a child care centre, as referred to by McLean (1988), Sebastian

(1986), Sorensen (1997), and Wellisch (1996).

As staff:staff relationships were not the direct focus of observation, no specific

examples of the problems can be cited. On one observation day, however, there was

an evident lack of communication and program co-ordination, indicating an absence of

joint planning or agreement between two particular staff members, which resulted in a

few minor delays to activity implementation. The shortcoming did not re-occur and the

impact on work climate appeared to be of short duration, with subsequent extra-

curricular team-building efforts said to have resolved many of the initial problems.

The change of leadership did not lead to any alteration in programming philosophy,

including expectations for and approaches to early childhood education and care, or

classroom rules. There was no discernible change to organisational climate, or

relationships between parents and staff, or staff and children.

The centre also maintained a long standing and regular involvement in teacher training

practicums and work experience programs by making the facilities available to tertiary

education institutions and the local high school. Thus the children were accustomed to

different “staff members”, performing a variety of practical and record keeping tasks,

being in the room along with their regular teachers.

Overall, there were no apparent inconsistencies in the culture of the centre that could

129

account for specific occurrences of UCBs at a particular time or in a particular place.

4.3.5 Conclusions about stability of the setting

Although there were a number of events that impacted on staff and programming, none

was seen to have any lasting effect on the physical, social, structural, or cultural,

components of the child care centre’s environment. Overall, therefore, the setting

provided the consistency required for the observation of children, as multiple cases in a

relatively stable environment, over a period of five months.

4.4 Data collection

Data collection was achieved with the use of plain English language narrative recorded

onto audio-tape concurrently with observations of the focus-child’s actions. Maintaining

a continuous commentary in the playrooms and outdoor play area presented no specific

difficulties for the observer. The utilisation of verbal comments within the narrative,

specifically denoting opinion in addition to a description of actions, provided

considerable support in contextualising some of the narrative in later transcriptions of

the audio-taped data. Further support was provided by sketch plans of daily layouts of

furniture and equipment.

From the observer’s point of view, the orientation period was an absolute necessity and

10 days probably represented the minimum time required for the observer to become

familiar with the centre’s routines and children’s names. Not having to select specific

behaviours for reporting, recall predetermined behaviour identification codes or be

cognisant of time periods, in the recording of data, allowed the observer to concentrate

fully on sequences of the focus-child’s actions, as well as those of peers and staff

during periods of contact with the focus-child.

The observer’s presence in the play areas attracted little overt attention from focus-

children after the orientation period. Acceptance by the children may have been

influenced by their regular exposure to trainee teachers and senior school students on

work experience programs. The observer’s practice of not initiating contact appeared to

be accepted by children very quickly as part of his role. Staff also commented that they

had ceased to notice the observer in the room and that he had become “part of the

furniture”. While not claiming that remarks by staff and the shortage of child interest

indicated a lack of observer influence in the environment, it would appear to suggest

that the influence was reasonably consistent and, to a large extent, became part of the

background to play area activities.

130

Exceptions to the consistent practice of not initiating contact occurred with children on

two occasions and with staff on five occasions. The observer made each of these

initiations in the interest of child safety. Ethical issues associated with an adult’s duty of

care to, or moral responsibility for young children, and the dilemma sometimes created

in respect to the ecological validity of observing children at play over long periods, is

discussed in Chapter Six. At the present time, however, it is believed that the

interventions by the observer had no substantial impact on findings relating to

influences of environmental factors on UCBs.

The consistency of the narrative over the observation period, and reliability in relation to

recording all events as they happened, was verified by comparing the number of

events, comments or opinions, and UCBs recorded on audio-tape with five concurrent

sessions that were video-filmed by a concealed fixed-position camera. The duration of

the video-filmed sequences and results of event comparisons are presented in Table

4.1.

Table 4.1 Comparisons of audio-tape and video-film records of event numbers

Observation day Duration of useable video film

Number of events recorded

Number of comments recorded

Number of UCBs recorded

Day #3 9 minutes Audio 25 1 1 Video 17 0 1 Day #14 26 minutes Audio 56 3 1 Video 42 0 1 Day #21 36 minutes Audio 37 4 0 Video 24 0 0 Day #29 12 minutes Audio 18 3 0 Video 15 0 0 Day #50 21 minutes Audio 41 4 2 Video 27 0 2

Overall, the use of a fixed-position camera to provide a video-film recording of a focus-

child’s actions concurrent with the observer’s commentary on the child demonstrated

limitations as a reliability check for observer consistency. Although there was total

agreement on the number of UCBs and a high level of agreement between the “live”

narrative and the action that could be described from the video-film for all five sessions,

the camera provided considerably less information, as can be seen from Table 4.1. For

131

example, on days #3, #21, and #50, the video-film captured only two-thirds of the

number of events recorded by the observer on audio-tape. Part of the limited

usefulness was due to the rapid mobility of children in the age-group 3-5 years that

frequently took them out of camera range. Another limitation was the fixed-positioned

camera’s inability to capture environmentally important stimuli which were “out-of-

frame”, such as distractions to the focus-child caused by arrivals and departures of

other children and staff, and adjacent child:child or child:staff conflicts. The problem is

evidenced by the lack of comments or opinions that could be made from the video-film

compared to those made on audio-tape. Although the video-film data did support the

accuracy of the audio-taped narrative, the various limitations rendered data collected by

the fixed-position camera as less useful in the reconstruction of streams of behaviour.

4.5 Focus-children

At the time when letters were provided for parents, there were 36 children enrolled in

the preschoolers’ room: 14 girls representing 39% of total enrolments and 22 boys

representing 61%. Initial parental approval allowed the participation of 34 focus-

children, although seven left the centre before data was collected on them. Parents of

nine children who were enrolled after March also agreed to participate, but only three

completed the six-week settling-in period before the September finish to the observation

schedule. Parents of three children declined to participate. By the end of the

observation period, 30 children had been observed: 12 girls representing 40% of the

total number of focus-children, and 18 boys representing 60%. Thus the gender

balance of the focus-child population of the current study reflected the gender

population of the preschoolers’ group as a whole.

4.5.1 Changes in numbers of enrolled children and enrolment days

Over the five months of observations at the child care centre the number of enrolled

children varied from week to week, as did the days on which they were booked to

attend. Table 4.2 summarises details from the centre’s roll-book and shows the

variation in numbers of enrolled children, and the number of days for which they were

enrolled, at the beginning of April, June and August.

Table 4.2 Variations in children’s enrolments over the observation period

Month Enrolled children

Enrolled 1 day

Enrolled 2 days

Enrolled 3 days

Enrolled 4 days

Enrolled 5 days

April 37 13 14 6 3 1 June 39 13 15 8 2 1 August 36 15 10 7 2 1

132

By August, 30 of the original 37 children who were enrolled at the beginning of April

were still attending the centre. Of these 30, only 21 had retained the same booked

enrolment days over the period. However, the attendance days of individual children

frequently varied from the numbers of days they were booked to attend each week. In

any week, for example, the parents of a child scheduled to attend on Tuesday and

Thursday may have added, swapped, or missed a day altogether.

4.5.2 Attendance patterns of focus-children and days observed

The lack of consistency in enrolments and attendance by focus-children posed a

considerable barrier to the maintenance of the original observation schedule. On three

days none of the pre-selected focus-children arrived at the centre and no observations

were recorded. By June, the variations in attendance patterns forced the abandonment

of strict adherence to the proportional representation basis for the observation

schedule. Therefore, the final number of days each focus-child was observed only

approximated their individual attendance patterns. Table 4.3 shows the number of full-

day observations made on each of the 30 focus-children.

Table 4.3 Number of observations made on each of 30 focus-children Female focus-

children Number of observation

days

Male focus-children

Number of observation

days PF01 1 PM01 2 PF02 1 PM02 1 PF03 3 PM03 2 PF04 1 PM04 1 PF05 3 PM05 2 PF06 4 PM06 2 PF07 3 PM08 1 PF08 1 PM09 3 PF09 1 PM12 2 PF11 1 PM13 2 PF13 1 PM14 1 PF14 2 PM15 1

Total 22 PM18 1 PM19 2 PM20 1 PM21 4 PM22 3 PM25 1 Total 32

At the end of the observation period, 36 enrolled children in the preschoolers’ room

attended for a total of 69 days each week. Of these, girls were enrolled for 27 days

133

(39% of the total) and boys were enrolled for 42 days (61%). Over the previous five

months, female focus-children had been observed for 22 days (41% of total observation

days) and boys observed for 32 days (59%). Thus the number of days girls and boys

were observed closely resembled the attendance pattern of the preschoolers’ group as

a whole.

4.6 Observation times

The duration of each day’s observations was dependent on the time parents brought

the focus-child to the centre in the morning and collected him or her in the afternoon.

The outcome yielded data samples with wide variation in start and finish times within

the centre’s operating hours of 7:30am to 5:30pm. The comparative differences for

each observation day are depicted in Figure 4.1; the precise times are listed in

Appendix 3.

Figure 4.1 Arrival and departure times of focus-child for each of the 54 days

Each parent delivered and collected their child within approximately 20 minutes of the

same time on most days, although parents differed from each other by up to two hours

or more. Being at the earlier or later end of the range for each individual, however,

resulted in variations of 40 minutes or more for the same child over different

observation days. For example, PM13 stayed 7 hours 58 minutes on one observation

day and 6 hours 45 minutes on the other. The duration for all children ranged from a

minimum of 4 hours 16 minutes to a maximum of 9 hours 20 minutes, with an average

of 7 hour 15 minutes. The variation in attendance duration between each observation

day is graphically represented in Figure 4.2. Total recording time for all observations

over the 54 days was 391 hours and 55 minutes.

7:30 am 8:30 am 9:30 am 10:30am

11:30am

12:30pm

1:30 pm 2:30 pm 3:30 pm 4:30 pm 5:30 pm

Time of day

1

54

Obs

erva

tion

days

Daily arrival & departure times of focus-children

134

Figure 4.2 Variations in duration of observations across the 54 days of recording

4.6.1 Observation times and gender

The practice of selecting three children for each day and observing the first to arrive led

to an imbalance of observation time in favour of boys. Therefore, in the final month of

data collection, individual children were selected for observation in order to preserve an

appropriate gender balance of subjects. As a result, female focus-children were

observed for a total of 160 hours 22 minutes and male focus-children were observed for

231 hours 33 minutes, representing 41:59 female:male ratio. The range for the 22

individual observations of females was 4 hours 16 minutes to 8 hours 43 minutes, with

an average of 7 hours 17 minutes. For males, the 32 individual observations ranged

from 5 hours 02 minutes to 9 hours 20 minutes, with an average of 7 hours 14 minutes.

The details for percentages of males and females are presented in Table 4.4, which

shows that an approximately 60% male, 40% female ratio was preserved between the

gender of focus-children, the number of days each gender was observed, and the

amount of time each gender was observed.

Table 4.4 Gender balance in number and observations of enrolled and observed children

Gender Focus- children % of total Obs days % of total Obs Hours % of total

Female 12 40% 22 41% 160 41% Male 18 60% 32 59% 231 59%

Totals 30 100% 54 100% 391 100%

Together with the earlier stated comparisons of enrolments by gender and attendance

days by gender (sections 4.5 & 4.5.2), the observation schedule reflected the

attendance patterns of girls and boys from the preschoolers’ room as a whole.

Therefore, the total number of UCBs observed, and their percentages and frequency

Daily attendance time of focus-children

0:00

2:00

4:00

6:00

8:00

10:00

1 54Observation days

Hou

rs o

f atte

ndan

ce

135

rates, should have represented a rate that would normally occur within the

preschoolers’ group.

4.6.2 Observation times across behaviour settings

The sub-total duration of all observations made in each of the 22 regular behaviour

settings over 54 days ranged from 31 minutes for afternoon transitions from outdoor to

indoor activities (#20), to 91 hours and 41 minutes for the after lunch preschoolers’

playroom inside free play period (#13). The variations in total observation time for all 22

regular behaviour settings are illustrated in Figure 4.3. Details of times for each day are

listed in Appendix 4.

Figure 4.3 Distribution of observation time across the 22 major behaviour settings

Maximum observation time in any of the 22 major settings was dictated by the time

allocated to each setting as a result of staff’s program organisation and schedules.

Focus-children’s attendance patterns, in relation to arrival and departure time, also had

a significant impact on the duration of observations in any single setting, particularly up

to 10.00am and after 3.00pm. Therefore, the distribution of observation time is

particularly uneven not only in total (Figure 4.2) but also across individual settings from

day-to-day (Figure 4.3).

4.6.3 Observations of children in the centre In addition to variations across settings, the attendance time of individual focus-

Observation time over major settings

0102030405060708090

100

Sched

uled n

ursery

free p

lay (a

m)

Sched

uled i

ndoo

r free

play

(am)

Pre-morn

ing te

a grou

p acti

vities

Pre-morn

ing te

a toil

eting

Morning

tea

Transit

ion to

outdo

or pla

y (am

)

Sched

uled o

utdoo

r free

play

(am)

Transit

ion to

indo

or ac

tivitie

s (am

)

Unsch

edule

d ins

ide fre

e play

(am)

Pre-lun

ch gr

oup a

ctivit

es

Pre-lun

ch to

iletin

g

Lunc

htime

Sched

uled i

ndoo

r free

play

(pm)

Childre

ns' a

fterno

on sl

eep

Pre-aft

ernoo

n tea

grou

p acti

vies

Pre-aft

ernoo

n tea

toile

ting

Afterno

on te

a

Transit

ion to

outdo

or pla

y (pm

)

Sched

uled o

utdoo

r free

play

(pm)

Transit

ion to

indo

or ac

tivitie

s (pm

)

Unsch

edule

d ins

ide fre

e play

(pm)

Sched

uled n

ursery

free p

lay (p

m)

22 major settings

Hou

rs

136

children varied widely within each regular behaviour setting as a result of their different

arrival and departure times. For example, the duration of focus-children’s experience in

the preschoolers’ playroom morning free play setting (setting #2) ranged from 97

minutes (PM21 on day 6) to 7 minutes (PF07 on day 54). Figure 4.4 illustrates the

differences between the length of time each focus-child spent in the morning free play

session in the preschool room over the 54 days of observation. Details of the number

of minutes individual children were observed in each behaviour setting are listed in

Appendix 4.

Figure 4.4 Variations in the duration of morning indoor free play observations

4.6.4 Observation times and days for individual children

While the overall program remained relatively stable during the observation period, the

time spent by the observer in each of the 22 major settings, and the number of children

observed in those settings, varied considerably (Table 4.5). The variations had two

causes: the previously mentioned impact of children’s arrival and departure times; and

changes to the duration of settings made by staff in response to unplanned events. For

example, on a. child’s birthdays his or her parent(s) might bring a cake, the lighting and

eating of which prolonged morning tea on a number of occasions during the data

collection period. On numerous other occasions, staff responded to the special

interests of children in particular free play activities, which sometimes led to the

shortening or omission of group periods. Adjustments to schedules also occurred as a

result of inclement weather, which prevented the usual amount of outside free play on

20 mornings and 17 afternoons during the 54 days of observation.

As a result of individual attendance patterns and changes to the program schedule, all

30 children were observed in only six settings, as shown in Table 4.5. These were the

preschooler’s playroom morning indoor free play (#2), pre-morning tea toilet routine

Morning free play in the preschool playroom

0

30

60

90

120

1 54Observation days

Min

utes

137

(#4), morning tea (#5), the pre-lunch toilet routine (#11), lunch (#12), and the afternoon

scheduled preschoolers’ playroom indoor free play period (#13). At the other end of the

range, data were gathered on only six children in the afternoon transition from outside

to inside (#20) and the afternoon nursery free play setting (#22).

Table 4.5 Number of children observed and total time in each major setting Code Setting # chn % chn hh.mm % time

1 Scheduled nursery free play (am) 7 23.33% 4.24 1.12% 2 Scheduled indoor free play (am) 30 100.00% 44.36 11.38% 3 Pre-morning tea group activities 27 90.00% 11.34 2.95% 4 Pre-morning tea toileting 30 100.00% 2.31 0.64% 5 Morning tea 30 100.00% 18.02 4.60% 6 Transition to outdoor play (am) 29 96.67% 6.38 1.69% 7 Scheduled outdoor free play (am) 24 80.00% 41.57 10.70% 8 Transition to indoor activities (am) 23 76.67% 2.45 0.70% 9 Unscheduled inside free play (am) 16 53.33% 19.27 4.96%

10 Pre-lunch group activities 25 83.33% 10.33 2.69% 11 Pre-lunch toileting 30 100.00% 2.28 0.63% 12 Lunchtime 30 100.00% 26.45 6.83% 13 Scheduled indoor free play (pm) 30 100.00% 91.43 23.40% 14 Children’s afternoon sleep 5 16.67% 21.28 5.52% 15 Pre-afternoon tea group activities 22 73.33% 9.29 2.42% 16 Pre-afternoon tea toileting 29 96.67% 2.29 0.60% 17 Afternoon tea 29 96.67% 10.40 2.72% 18 Transition to outdoor play (pm) 26 86.67% 5.47 1.48% 19 Scheduled outdoor free play (pm) 25 83.33% 39.52 10.17% 20 Transition to indoor activities (pm) 6 20.00% 0.31 0.13% 21 Unscheduled inside free play (pm) 12 40.00% 11.45 3.00% 22 Scheduled nursery free play (pm) 6 20.00% 6.31 1.66%

Total 391.55 100.00%

Table 4.5 also shows the range of total observation time of focus-children across the 22

settings. Almost a quarter of all observation time was spent collecting data on all 30

focus-children during the afternoon inside free play settings (#13). The total

observation time in afternoon indoor free play setting #13 (91 hours 43 minutes) was

more than twice that of the morning indoor free play settings (#2), which accumulated

the second highest total (44 hours 36 minutes). However, the morning free play setting

also comprised the collection of data on all 30 focus-children, while the third highest

total of observation hours, the morning outdoor free play settings (#7), collected data on

only 24 children. Individually, therefore, each focus-child was observed for an average

of approximately 1 hour 30 minutes in setting #2, while 24 focus-children were observed

for an average of 1 hour 45 minutes each, and six were not observed at all, in setting

#7.

138

The different arrival and departure times are reflected in considerable variation between

the hours each focus-child was observed, even when the number of observation days

was the same. Comparisons between focus-children are graphically illustrated by

Figure 4.5. Column figures represent the number of days each focus-child was

observed. Thus, PF03 can be seen to have been observed for a longer total period on

her three days than were either PF05 or PF07 on the total of their three days, which

were not much greater than PF14 on her two days. Similarly, the total time PF14 was

observed was far greater than the two days on which PM01 was observed.

Figure 4.5 Comparative duration of all observations for each focus-child

The total observation time for each of the 30 focus-children ranged from 33 hours 45

minutes (PF06) to 4 hours 16 minutes (PF09), with an average of 13 hours and 04

minutes. The total number of days each focus-child was observed ranged from one to

four. Full details of the time each child spent in each of the 22 major behaviour settings

are presented in Appendix 4.

4.6.4.1 Compounded behaviour settings

Although the limitations of generalisation and the potential for distortions of data are

acknowledged, the 22 major settings were compounded into seven groups that

provided an opportunity to compare times and occurrences of UCBs across a number

of temporally and spatially separated periods with shared activity characteristics.

The comparative sub-totals of the duration of all observations across the seven

compounded settings over 54 days are illustrated in Figure 4.6. Column labels, in

hours and minutes, show that focus-children were observed during indoor free play

Focus-children's observation times & days

1

3

4

1

2

111

22

3

1

22

1

2

1

2

2

11

11

3

4

3

1

3

11

0

10

20

30

40

PF01PF02

PF03PF04

PF05PF06

PF07PF08

PF09PF11

PF13PF14

PM01PM02

PM03PM04

PM05PM06

PM08PM09

PM12PM13

PM14PM15

PM18PM19

PM20PM21

PM22PM25

Female Focus children Male

Hou

rs

139

considerably more than in any other compounded setting. The combined indoor and

outdoor free play settings accounted for two-thirds of the observation time, with

structured activities, including routines, transitions, and formal group or circle-time,

accounting for the remaining one-third.

Figure 4.6 Duration of observations across compounded behaviour settings

4.6.5 Observation times, gender and behaviour settings

Table 4.6 Percentages of time female and male focus-children were observed in the major behaviour settings

Major behaviour settings Females Males

Scheduled nursery free play (am) 3.41% 96.59% Scheduled indoor free play (am) 37.18% 62.82% Pre-morning tea group activities 40.63% 59.37% Pre-morning tea toileting 39.74% 60.26% Morning tea 40.48% 59.52% Transition to outdoor play (am) 34.17% 65.83% Scheduled outdoor free play (am) 37.15% 62.85% Transition to indoor activities (am) 39.39% 60.61% Unscheduled inside free play (am) 50.90% 49.10% Pre-lunch group activities 44.87% 55.13% Pre-lunch toileting 43.92% 56.08% Lunchtime 39.56% 60.44% Scheduled indoor free play (pm) 44.39% 55.61% Children’s afternoon sleep 22.52% 77.48% Pre-afternoon tea group activities 51.85% 48.15% Pre-afternoon tea toileting 58.39% 41.61% Afternoon tea 36.09% 63.91% Transition to outdoor play (pm) 50.14% 49.86% Scheduled outdoor free play (pm) 34.57% 65.43% Transition to indoor activities (pm) 67.74% 32.26% Unscheduled inside free play (pm) 63.69% 36.31% Scheduled nursery free play (pm) 78.52% 21.48%

Observations across compounded settings

21:2815:41

55:27

7:28

31:36

81:49

178:26

0.0

30.0

60.0

90.0

120.0

150.0

180.0

Indoor free play Outdoor free play Group and circle-times

Bathroom routines M/T, Lunch, A/T Transitions Children'afternoon sleep

Compounded behaviour settings

Hou

rs o

bser

ved

140

The proportion of time that male and female children were observed in each of the 22

major behaviour settings was calculated over the 54 days as percentages of the total

observation time for each setting (Table 4.6). Table 4.6 shows that the time female

focus-children were observed in any one setting, as a percentage of the total time all

focus-children were observed in the setting, ranged from a low 3.41% in the morning

nursery free play setting to a high of 78.52% in the afternoon nursery free play setting.

Boys ranged from a low of 21.48% to a high of 96.59%.

4.7 Identifying unwanted child behaviours

Identification of UCBs from staff responses proved remarkably uncomplicated. Over

the 54 days of data collection staff were asked to confirm observations, that they had

been interrupted by children’s activities, on only two occasions. In both situations the

observer had doubts as to whether the staff members were responding to an UCB or

had initiated contact with children in anticipation of an UCB occurring. The latter was

deemed to be part of normal planning and pro-active supervision of staff and, therefore,

not a disruption. The remaining 1382 teacher responses, identified as emanating from

UCBs, appeared unambiguous to the author.

The simplicity and accuracy of the strategy was supported by the reports from the two

experienced teachers who surveyed three transcripts which, according to the author,

provided a total of 137 UCBs, or a little under 10% of the total. Teacher “A” identified

133 of the 137 UCBs, and added a further 8 that were not included by the author.

Teacher “B” specified 131 of the 137 UCBs and selected a further 11. Discussion

between the author and the teachers eliminated all but one of the additions and found

consensus on all but two of the original 137 UCBs. In the current study, the 1384 UCBs

identified by the author have been used for the purpose of presenting raw figures and

discussion.

4.7.1 UCBs across the 54 observation days

One of the most striking features of the data on occurrences of UCBs was the extent of

variations in their number across, and timing within, the observation days. As the data

shows (summarised in Figure 4.7, and expanded in Appendix 5), the number of UCBs

observed in relation to a focus-child on any single day ranged from 141 (day 25) to 2

(days 38 & 46), with a 54 day average of a little under 26.

141

Figure 4.7 The number of UCBs recorded on each of the 54 observation days

The frequency of UCBs involving a focus-child on any single observation day ranged

from every 5 minutes (day 13) to every 3 hours 25 minutes (day 40), with a 54 day

average of every 17 minutes. Within each day, however, the patterns were quite

different, with some focus-children exhibiting greater numbers of UCBs in the morning

compared to the afternoon, and others demonstrating the reverse (Appendix 5).

4.7.2 UCBs and time-of-day

The time of occurrences of all 1384 UCBs observed over the 54 days was plotted

across each minute of the full operating day of the child care centre and against the

number of days on which the times were observed. The results are shown in Figure 4.8

with the UCBs represented by vertical bars and the number of days on which each

minute of the day was observed represented by the line graph.

Figure 4.8 Occurrences of UCBs at different times of the day and the number of days on which the times were observed

Averaged over the 54 observation days, UCBs peaked just before morning tea, at

UCBs over observation days

0

40

80

120

160

1 54Observation days

Num

ber o

f UC

Bs

Attendances and UCBs over all observation days

0

2

4

6

8

10

7.30 8.30 9.30 10.30 11.30 12.30 1.30 2.30 3.30 4.30 5.30

Time of day

Num

ber o

f UC

Bs

0

9

18

27

36

45

54

Num

ber o

f day

s

142

10.00am, with a secondary peak just after lunch at 12.30pm. Proportionate to the

number of days on which observations were made, the early morning and late

afternoon periods produced large numbers of UCBs.

4.7.3 UCBs across the 22 major settings

The 1384 UCBs were tabulated across the 22 major settings and against the number of

focus-children involved with them. Frequencies were also calculated by aggregating

the total observation time for each major setting and dividing the sub-total by the total

number of UCBs that occurred in that setting. The raw figures are listed in Table 4.7.

Table 4.7 Number of focus-children and frequencies of UCBs across settings

Code Major settings Number of focus-children involved

in UCBs

Number of UCBs initiated

Frequency of UCBs in minutes

1 Scheduled nursery free play (am) 5 52 5 2 Scheduled indoor free play (am) 21 217 12 3 Pre-morning tea group activities 14 55 13 4 Pre-morning tea toileting 8 12 13 5 Morning tea 18 49 22 6 Transition to outdoor play (am) 11 23 17 7 Scheduled outdoor free play (am) 23 177 14 8 Transition to indoor activities (am) 5 14 12 9 Unscheduled inside free play (am) 10 82 14

10 Pre-lunch group activities 13 43 15 11 Pre-lunch toileting 5 8 18 12 Lunchtime 20 56 29 13 Scheduled indoor free play (pm) 28 339 16 14 Children’s afternoon sleep 0 0 0 15 Pre-afternoon tea group activities 10 34 17 16 Pre-afternoon tea toileting 4 6 25 17 Afternoon tea 6 16 40 18 Transition to outdoor play (pm) 6 18 19 19 Scheduled outdoor free play (pm) 19 124 19 20 Transition to indoor activities (pm) 2 6 5 21 Unscheduled inside free play (pm) 5 19 37 22 Scheduled nursery free play (pm) 5 34 11

Total 1384

Averaged over the 54 observation days, UCBs in the morning setting (#2) occurred with

20% more frequency than in the early afternoon setting (#13). A similar trend towards

less frequent UCBs, from morning to afternoon, is reflected in the outdoor free play

sessions. Similarly, group sessions followed by toileting routines and a snack or meal

formed a trilogy of settings that were repeated three times on most days. As Table 4.7

shows, the three-part morning routine created aggregate frequency counts of one UCB

every 13, 13 and 22 minutes respectively. The frequency rates decreased to one UCB

143

every 15, 18 and 29 minutes respectively by lunch, and by the afternoon they were

down to one UCB every 17, 25 and 40 minutes. In terms of frequencies, the pattern of

diminishing frequencies of UCBs from morning to afternoon is unmistakable.

An apparent exception to the overall trend was the final nursery free play setting that

yielded a frequency rate of one UCB every 11 minutes, although closer inspection of

the data indicates a significant anomaly. On day 25, during a period of almost

continuous confrontation lasting 36 minutes, PM09 initiated 19 UCBs with three

different members of staff. His singular contribution represented 56% of the total

number of 34 UCBs recorded in the afternoon nursery setting over the entire

observation period, and demonstrates the impact one child can have on grouped data.

Details of UCBs exhibited by other individual focus-children within each of the 22 major

settings are listed in Appendix 5.

4.7.3.1 UCBs across compounded settings

Indoor free play sessions were observed for more than 178 hours, or 45.4% of the total

observation time, and gave rise to 743 UCBs representing 53.7% of the overall total.

Although high, the frequency rates indicate that the setting was no more prone to UCBs

than most of the others. There were, however, distinctions between the frequencies of

UCBs aggregated across each of the six major indoor free play settings. In particular,

as Table 4.8 shows, the frequency decreased during the day, from a high of one UCB

every five minutes in setting #1 to one UCB every 37 minutes in setting #21.

Table 4.8 Frequency of UCBs across genders and compounded settings

Compounded behaviour settings

Total Number of

UCBs

Number of female UCBs

% of females

Frequency (minutes)

Number of male UCBs

% of males

Frequency (minutes)

Indoor free play 743 155 20.86% 31 588 79.14% 10 Outdoor free play 301 64 21.26% 28 237 78.74% 13 Formal groups 132 50 37.88% 17 82 62.12% 13 Bathroom routines 26 9 34.62% 24 17 65.38% 14 Mealtimes 121 32 26.45% 41 89 73.55% 23 Transitions 61 15 24.59% 26 46 75.41% 12 Afternoon sleep 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0.00% 0

Totals 1384 325 23.48% 30 1059 76.52% 13

Frequency rates for occurrences of UCBs were also calculated across the compounded

settings and are presented in Table 4.8 to show the variations between the female and

male focus-children. Thus, in indoor free play, 743 UCBs were observed of which 155

occurred on days when girls were focus-children and 588 occurred on days when boys

144

were focus-children. On average, the female focus-children produced one UCB every

31 minutes, while boys produced one every 10 minutes in these settings. Only during

the formal group times and bathroom routines did girls exhibit UCBs at a rate close to

their average ratio of 40% membership of the focus-child population. In all other

settings the boys produced UCBs at a rate of three to each one produced by the girls.

A total of 1044 UCBs were recorded in the combined inside and outside free play

settings during 260 hours and 15 minutes of observations, providing a frequency rate of

one UCB every 15 minutes. Over the remaining five compounded settings, which were

all teacher-directed, 340 UCBs were recorded during 131 hours and 40 minutes of

observations, providing a frequency rate of one UCB every 23 minutes.

4.7.4 Number and frequency of UCBs for each focus-child

The number of UCBs in which each focus-child was involved on their observation

day(s) is presented in Tables 4.9 & 4.10. Frequency rates have been aggregated

across all settings and were calculated by dividing the total time the child was observed

by the number of UCBs the child produced.

Table 4.9 UCBs and females Table 4.10 UCBs and males

Focus- child

Number of UCBs

Minutes of observation

Frequency (minutes)

Focus- child

Number of UCBs

Minutes of observation

Frequency (minutes)

PF01 15 426 28 PM01 58 735 13 PF02 13 374 29 PM02 19 470 25 PF03 56 1476 26 PM03 22 761 35 PF04 12 356 30 PM04 15 361 24 PF05 41 1211 30 PM05 40 776 19 PF06 31 2026 65 PM06 14 878 63 PF07 58 1221 21 PM08 2 409 205 PF08 15 422 28 PM09 242 1350 6 PF09 2 256 128 PM12 15 799 53 PF11 5 452 90 PM13 15 883 59 PF13 33 406 12 PM14 5 353 71 PF14 44 996 23 PM15 58 460 8

PM18 28 473 17 PM19 127 986 8 PM20 97 560 6 PM21 168 1869 11 PM22 63 1396 22 PM25 71 374 5

The range of UCB frequency for female focus-children was from every 12 minutes

(PF13) to every 128 minutes (PF09). For male focus-children the range was from one

every five minutes (PM25) to one every 205 minutes (PM08). The female exhibiting

145

UCBs most frequently was ranked 7th overall, with only two other girls (PF07 & PF14) in

the top 50% of all 30 focus-children.

In cases where individual children were observed on more than one day, the intra-child

variations was almost as great as inter-child differences (Appendix 5). For example,

observation of PF03 over three days recorded daily totals of 24, 8, and 24 UCBs

respectively, while the three days for PF05 recorded 34, 5, and 2 UCBs. The seemingly

chaotic pattern of daily UCB production was similar for male focus-children observed for

three days, for example, PM09 (58, 141, & 43) and PM22 (23, 32, & 8). While UCBs

were seen as more evenly distributed across observation days for some children

(PF07), others observed for two days demonstrated considerable contrast, for example

PF14 (31, 13), PM03 (19, 3), PM06 (3, 11), PM12 (13, 2), and PM19 (95, 32).

4.7.5 Initiators and targets of UCBs

The identification of an UCB during the observations on any day required that the focus-

child be involved as the initiator or target, or associated as a group member. At the

same time as these events were being recorded, data were also collected on the

identity of the focus-child’s target, when he or she was the initiator, and on the identity

of the initiator when the focus-child was the target. The role played by the focus-child,

aggregated across all 54 observation days is presented in Tables 4.11 and 4.12. For

example, PF01 was observed to be involved in 16 UCBs, or 1.16% of all 1384 UCBs,

over the 54 days. Of the 16, she initiated 12, was a target of three initiated by others,

and was part of a group, but not the initiator or target, in one other UCB.

Table 4.11 Preschool female initiators and targets of UCBs over 54 days

Focus-child UCBs initiated

As a target of others’ UCBs

Associated with UCBs of

others

Total number of UCBs for each child

% of all 1384 UCBs

PF01 12 3 1 16 1.16% PF02 10 3 1 14 1.01% PF03 63 29 16 108 7.80% PF04 15 2 4 21 1.52% PF05 37 14 11 62 4.48% PF06 27 10 12 49 3.54% PF07 55 2 8 65 4.70% PF08 14 8 3 25 1.81% PF09 3 0 3 6 0.43% PF11 4 5 2 11 0.79% PF13 29 7 4 40 2.89% PF14 33 14 3 50 3.61%

Total 302 97 68

146

Table 4.12 Preschool male initiators and targets of UCBs over 54 days

Focus-child UCBs initiated

As a target of others’ UCBs

Associated with UCBs of

others

Total number of UCBs for each child

% of all 1384 UCBs

PM01 55 26 3 84 6.07% PM02 19 6 1 26 1.88% PM03 25 4 4 33 2.38% PM04 15 16 5 36 2.60% PM05 42 25 18 85 6.14% PM06 20 21 28 69 4.99% PM08 2 2 2 6 0.43% PM09 219 63 7 289 20.88% PM12 12 4 5 21 1.52% PM13 11 9 9 29 2.10% PM14 5 7 7 19 1.37% PM15 53 11 1 65 4.70% PM18 45 20 19 84 6.07% PM19 132 49 19 200 14.45% PM20 76 40 26 142 10.26% PM21 165 28 12 205 14.81% PM22 65 17 11 93 6.72% PM25 50 18 5 73 5.27%

Total 1011 366 182

A further 24 UCBs were initiated by seven preschoolers, who were not classified as

focus-children. The remaining 47 UCBs, to make the total of 1384, were initiated by

toddlers and babies during various mixed-age grouped sessions. Details of

relationships between focus-children, as initiators or members of groups, and their

targets, are provided in Appendix 6.

Of the 1313 UCBs initiated by the 30 focus-children, 316 were directed at 11 staff

members by 24 focus-children, as shown in Table 4.13.

Table 4.13 Staff targets of UCBs initiated by focus-children

Staff member Number of UCBs Number of initiators S01 27 9 S02 2 2 S04 10 5 S05 98 14 S06 20 8 S08 8 3 S10 130 18 S11 3 3 S13 14 7 S17 2 1 S19 2 2

Total 316

147

The number of times each staff member was a target of focus-children reflects, to a

large extent, the time each staff member spent with the group. S01 was with the class

for several days each week until the third month of the observation period. S05 and

S10 were the regular staff members who spent most time with the group. S13 was a

support staff member with the group for three half days each week, working with the

child who had an autist spectrum disorder. S04 and S06 worked mainly with the

toddlers and joined the preschoolers’ group during the mixed-age sessions. S02 and

S08 worked mainly in the nursery, S11 in the kitchen, and S17 and S19 were casual

staff. Three other members of the centre’s staff, two casual staff members, two

education students, and two work experience students were not observed to have been

targeted by focus-children.

Together, the 11 staff listed in Table 4.13 were the targets of 68 UCBs initiated by

female focus-children and 248 initiated by male focus-children. Three girls (PF03,

PF07, and PF13) initiated 51 UCBs (75% of the female total), with the remaining 17

UCBs initiated by eight girls, with one female focus-child initiating none. Of the 248 all

male UCBs, one boy (PM09) initiated 86 UCBs (35% of the male total), mainly aimed at

S10. Five other boys (PM15, PM19, PM20 PM21 and PM22) were responsible for a

further 123 UCBs (a little under 50% of the male total), with seven boys accounting for

the remaining 39 UCBs and five male focus-children initiating none. Apart from PM09’s

relationship with S10, no other staff member was the specific target of a particular

focus-child.

4.7.6 Peer associations and UCBs

The nature of peer group associations were delineated into 11 sub-groups on the basis

of the initiator acting alone, targeting another accidentally, or being in a dyadic, triadic

or group relationship with peers. From examination of the behaviour streams, aided by

observer comments, a judgement was also made as to whether the intent of the UCB

was friendly, verbally hostile or physically hostile. The outcome of these divisions is

listed, along with UCB totals, sub-totals, and percentages of production by male and

female focus-children, in Table 4.14. Analyses of the behaviour streams of the focus-

children allowed unambiguous interpretations of all UCBs in relation to these sub-

categories. Almost 68% of the total number of UCBs involving male focus-children and

54% of the total number of UCBs involving female focus-children were classified as

involving predominantly physical activity. Further examination determined that UCBs

involving physical hostility described 21% of the total number of UCBs involving boys,

and 18% of the total number of UCBs involving girls.

148

Table 4.14 UCBs and 11 categories of peer associations

Code # Peer associations Total UCBs Female UCBs Female % of

total UCBs Males UCBs Male % of total UCBs

0 No association 629 155 24.64% 474 75.36% 1 Accidental contact 35 7 20.00% 28 80.00% 2 Friendly dyads 178 38 21.35% 140 78.65% 3 Friendly triads 67 6 8.96% 61 91.04% 4 Friendly groups 28 4 14.29% 24 85.71% 5 Verbally hostile

d d160 54 33.75% 106 66.25%

6 Physically hostile d d

257 56 21.79% 201 78.21% 7 Verbally hostile

t i d8 2 25.00% 6 75.00%

8 Physically hostile t i d

16 2 12.50% 14 87.50% 9 Verbally hostile 1 0 0.00% 1 100.00% 99 Physically hostile 5 1 20.00% 4 80.00%

Totals 1384 325 23.48% 1059 76.52%

4.7.7 Instrumental or object-related actions

In addition to the nature of peer associations, the 1384 UCBs were examined to

determine the role played by objects in child:child relationships. A summary of results

is illustrated in Tables 4.15 and 4.16.

Table 4.15 Females and objects Table 4.16 Males and objects Female focus-

child Object-related

UCBs Male focus-child Object-related UCBs

PF02 1 PM01 3 PF03 10 PM03 3 PF05 3 PM04 2 PF06 2 PM05 3 PF07 1 PM06 2 PF08 2 PM09 19 PF09 1 PM15 1 PF10 1 *PM17 1

*PF12 1 PM18 3 PF13 4 PM19 14 PF14 8 PM20 4

Total 34 PM21 5 PM22 1 PM25 3

Total 64

* not a focus-child

* not a focus-child

Some focus-children were more likely to be involved with objects than others with two

girls (PF03 & PF14) and two boys (PM09 & PM19) accounting for almost half the total

number. A number of these involved focus-children in isolated play or incidents and,

overall, objects appeared to play a minor role in UCBs between peers. A further seven

object-related UCBs were initiated by toddlers with focus-children as targets. The total

149

number of object-related UCBs involving focus-children was 105, representing 7.59% of

the total number of UCBs recorded. Details of UCBs involving objects for each focus-

child are listed in Appendix 7.

4.7.8 Categories of UCBs

UCBs were categorised according to the type of actions performed by focus-children

that attracted staff intervention and the physical location or activities in which the UCBs

occurred.

4.7.8.1 Focus-child actions and UCBs

Almost 500 separate types of actions were identified as ways of describing particular

UCBs. Most of these were listed under 13 generalised headings (Table 4.17) for the

purpose of preliminary organisation and discussion. Further analysis and interpretation

of some UCBs in Chapter Five indicated sub-categories of heading-actions. For

example, pushing was found to be exhibited in five different forms (see section 5.7.3.1),

and 27 different forms of children’s defiance were identified in 103 confrontations with

staff, while running inside was associated on a number of occasions with mitigating

circumstances. Although UCBs frequently manifested as one of the types listed below,

examination of the momentary situations and the behaviour stream clearly indicate that

no one UCB could be described in detail to be exactly like another.

Table 4.17 Major headings for describing activities attracting staff intervention

Child actions Number of UCBs

Climbing or standing on furniture 54 Complaining or reporting 121 Defying staff directives 103 Hits, kicks, pushes 133 Ignoring staff directives 131 Misusing facilities and resources 120 Making too much noise 29 Out-of-area/out-of-bounds 26 Out-of-seat/not sitting properly 80 Rough & tumble play 67 Running inside playrooms 34 Taking objects from others 35 Throwing objects 48

150

4.7.8.2 Physical locations and activities

The occurrences of UCBs were examined and categorised by the most predominant

feature of their location or activity. Under the three main headings of the nursery, the

preschoolers’ playroom, and outdoor play area, more than 100 different behaviour

settings and situations were identified as sites of UCBs. Those areas and activities

associated with more than 10 UCBs are listed in Table 4.18, with more details provided

in Appendix 7.

Table 4.18 Physical locations and activity settings for UCBs Nursery UCBs Preschoolers’ room UCBs Outdoor play area UCBs Blocks 23 Backdoor (transition) 26 Blue ball (climb-in) 15 General play area 24 Bag area 10 Hoops 17 Bathroom/toilet 40 Outdoor block area 11 Block area 79 Outdoor grassed area 65 Book area 14 Plastic fort 10 Carpet 60 Sandpit 46 Circular window 10 Tree seat 10 Collage trolley 17 Tree seat dig area 10 Dining tables 111 Verandah 16 Easy chair 30 Wooden fort 32 Gate 15 General play area 57 Group-time 109 Home 146

Painting table 13 Playdough 10

Puppets 11 Puzzle table 22 Story-reading 18 Time-out 14 TV 24

Although location provided a convenient label to categorise UCBs it did not imply an

influence on production of unwanted behaviours on every occasion. Frequently, the

site and materials were incidental to the apparent intent and obvious activity of the

UCB. In particular, the blocks and the home areas, dining tables, backdoor, and

bathroom, all provided a backdrop for numerous UCBs having no aetiology in the

physical properties of the settings. These phenomena are discussed more fully in

Chapter Five.

4.8 Sequences of unwanted child behaviours

As noted in Chapter Three, the identification of physical locations and activities as a

source of influence was approached through the analysis of sequences of unwanted

child behaviours (SUCBs) rather than simple occurrences of UCBs. Typically, a SUCB

was composed of the UCB and events consequent to staff intervention, which usually

consisted of the focus-child complying with a verbal directive issued by a staff-member

151

in response to the child’s action that initiated intervention. On 220 occasions, however,

the focus-child ignored or defied a directive. Periodically, further staff intervention to

enforce the child’s adherence to the original directive created another UCB that was

sequential to the first but not necessarily related to the antecedents of the first. For

example, on a number of occasions a focus-child’s defiance became the issue for

further staff intervention rather than the cause of the original UCB. When the child

continued to confront the staff-member with open defiance then further UCBs were

produced until the confrontation was resolved.

The 1384 recorded UCBs were contained in 1028 SUCBs, comprising 808 SUCBs

involving a single UCB, and 220 SUCBs with multiple UCBs, in a range of two to nine.

The number of UCBs in each of the 1028 identified SUCBs is listed in Table 4.19.

Table 4.19 Number of UCBs within SUCBs Number of UCBs Number of SUCBs

1 808 2 143 3 45 4 19 5 6 6 4 7 1 8 1 9 1 Total 1028

In some cases antecedent events comprised a stream of related interactions and

transactions with objects or other children, the majority of which occurred over periods

of a minute or less. However, streams of related behaviours were also observed to be

only temporarily interrupted or to run concurrently with other streams. In a number of

instances relevant antecedent events could be traced back for more than an hour

before erupting in the observed UCB at a particular time and place that had little

relevance to its history.

4.9 Conclusions about the evidence for unwanted child behaviours

The stability of the setting was seen as a definite aid in the observer’s attempt to

become a consistent influence in the environment of the child care centre. The strategy

was assisted by the regular involvement in the playrooms and outdoor area of students

and other people who were not members of the permanent or casual staff. The

152

recorded commentary provided thick description of behaviour sequences in “real time”

which facilitated the calculation of relative observation times and the easy identification

of UCBs. These combined to assist the analysis and interpretation of events, a point

supported by the level of agreement reached by a panel two independent analysts.

Calculations utilising the temporal data provided sub-totals for the duration of

observations across days, settings, and individual children. Among the most prominent

features to emerge was the variability in the attendance times of the focus-children. It

was shown that these times varied not only between children but also varied between

the same children on different days, which impacted on the length of time children spent

in particular settings and the social component of the environment they encountered.

The data clearly shows that, as a consequence of variable attendance patterns, among

the focus-children in the current study there was little uniformity of experience of the

child care centre. The variability in children’s arrival and departure times, days

attended, different staffing of rooms on different days, staff shift work, and a flexible

approach to scheduling of settings on a day-to-day basis, also limited opportunities to

identify a typical or average experience for attending children. This point is explored

further in Chapter Five.

For the most part, the identification of UCBs was achieved with little incertitude.

Behaviour streams were clearly discernible and in the majority of cases provided an

unambiguous exposition of behaviour units, from which momentary situations were

partitioned. Examination of momentary situations at the point when UCBs were

identified by staff intervention provided a basis for categorising the behaviours

according to specific types of peer group conditions, locations, and activities. Counts,

percentages and frequencies of occurrences of UCBs, under a variety of environmental

conditions suggested in the literature as being influential on child behaviour, are

presented in graphs and tables as a basis for analysis and interpretation in the following

chapter.

153

CHAPTER FIVE

Analysis and interpretation of environmental factors related to

occurrences of unwanted child behaviours

5.1 Introduction

During the process of both the recording and analysis of data, the author was

consistently reminded that UCBs were not necessarily the same behaviours as those

classified as child behaviour problems in many other studies. Before continuing with a

detailed interpretation of the findings of the current investigation, it may be appropriate

to reiterate the phenomenological nature of the identity of UCBs. The observer made

no value judgements on the legitimacy of staff intervention in children’s activities and

did not compare the actions of children that prompted staff intervention to any standard

definition of problem behaviours. Therefore, UCBs could be characterised as

constructs of the staff as much as representing the behaviours of children.

Consequently, variations in numbers, frequencies, locations, and times of UCBs could

be seen to reflect variations in staff behaviour as much as that of children. However,

examination of the children’s behaviour streams suggested otherwise, and

interpretation of the data demonstrated relationships between UCBs and a range of

environmental factors, including some correspondences, which are presented below.

5.2 Primary findings

The relationship between children’s displays of unwanted behaviour and factors within

the environment of a child care centre were found to be complex. The current study did

not identify any one environmental factor within the child care centre that influenced

manifestations of unwanted behaviour in all attending children. As a general summary,

it was found that some aspects of the environment influenced the occurrence of some

UCBs some of the time. However, these influences were rarely seen to be in isolation

from other environmental factors, and child reactions appeared dependent on the

psychological habitat of the child at the time. The findings reinforce the notion that

situations are defined by the individual (Fuhrer, 1990; Stebbins, 1973) and that child

behaviours are context dependent. Each of the focus-children responded to the context

of the situation (as defined in Chapter One) as it appears to him or her, with time

playing a pivotal role. The temporal factor helped explain shifts in the relative strength

of influence of related within-child and environmental factors to account for apparent

154

inconsistencies in a child’s behaviour within similar situations located across time.

5.2.1 The process of explicating the finding

While examining the data for evidence of environmental influences on the behaviour of

children within a child care centre, a number of related issues were raised. One of the

most salient points was the demonstrated differences in the experiences of child care

between children attending the same centre, created by exo-system factors, and which

were seen as contributing to the child’s psychological habitat. The extent of differences

in children’s experiences appeared to have implications for explaining differences in

behaviour. Therefore, the current interpretation of environmental influences on UCBs

started with temporal matters associated with each child’s physical presence in the child

care centre setting, sub-settings, and his or her access to situations. In conjunction

with temporal matters, the general occurrence of UCBs was analysed in relation to

time-of-day, different days and months, individual children, and children grouped by

gender. These were followed by consideration of the influence on the production of

UCBs exerted by physical, social, structural, and cultural components of the

environment of the child care centre.

Although temporal matters, child characteristics, and the physical, social, structural, and

cultural components of the environment were addressed under separate headings,

these six constituent parts of the influence on UCBs were found to be interrelated, and

involved interactional and transactional forms of relationships. As such, there is

extensive overlap of constituencies in much of the discussion. Nevertheless, the

findings both build on and extend existing knowledge, offering further understanding of

manifestations of children’s unwanted behaviours in a child care centre.

5.3 Children’s experiences of the child care centre

A number of investigations into the influence of child care centres on children’s

behaviour have considered the importance of a child’s attendance history (e.g.,

Derscheid, 1997; Hagekull & Bohlin, 1995; Haskins, 1985; Hennessy et al., 1992;

Podmore, 1993; Schindler et al., 1987; Thornburg et al., 1990). While distinctions have

been made between the quality of care in different centres, the majority of studies

assumed that children in the same child care centre experience the same environment.

However, findings from the current study suggested that each child had different

experiences of the same centre-based care as a result of his or her day-to-day

attendance pattern, and that this variation could be more confounding than length of

enrolment. Although time in settings has been recognised as a mitigating factor in

155

some situations (Maxwell, 1996), researchers rarely address the possibility that

attending children may construct different views of shared situations because of

dissimilar temporal exposure to common physical, structural, and social aspects of

environments.

The data collected in the current study clearly demonstrated that the 30 focus-children

each experienced the child care centre differently. The bases for the differences lie in

three particular features of the child care centre’s operation that are shared by most

other centres but not preschools or schools. These features relate to the flexible arrival

and departure times of children on each day, additional flexibility in the specific days

and number of days that children attend, and the structural flexibility inherent in most

child care centre programs. These points are also important in the light of research on

early childhood behaviour and development that attempts to generalise findings across

children attending different types of institutional settings.

5.3.1 Consequences for children of different arrival and departure times

Although the centre in the current study regularly opened at 7.30am and closed at

5.30pm, individual children arrived and departed at various times between those hours.

The data shows that some children arrived more than two hours after the first child

arrived in the morning, and some children left more than two hours before the last child

departed in the afternoon (Appendix 3). The variable patterns not only provided

children with different duration of child care centre experience, but also exposed them

to different temporal and spatial settings and situations at the start and end of the day,

as illustrated in the previous chapter (4.6.2; 4.6.3; 4.6.4).

In the current study, only seven focus-children experienced the relatively quiet and

small mixed-age-group start to the day that characterised the morning free-play session

in the nursery (Appendix 4). On 45 of the 54 observation days, the focus-child arrived

after 8.30am and on 20 of these days, did not arrive until after 9.00am (Appendix 3).

The majority of focus-children walked into the preschoolers’ playroom when it was

already occupied by children who had arrived earlier, had established their territory and

peer group associates for the session, and were working their way through the activities

made available by staff. The earlier arrivals were able to settle in slowly and organise

themselves and their friendships. Later arrivals were always confronted with a room full

of activity and the challenge of entering established groups and games, with all the

difficulties the task entails (e.g., Hartup & Laursen, 1993; Puttalaz & Wasserman, 1990;

Sims, 1997).

156

The early arrivals also had opportunity for more intimate involvement with staff and to

help prepare activities, which was not always available in the same quiet way to those

who arrived later. The points were illustrated by the different experiences of PM19 and

PF03. In Vignette 5.1 the centre had just opened and S05 was on her own in the

preschoolers’ playroom, setting up activities for the 8.30am session prior to co-

supervising the mixed-age group in the nursery.

Vignette 5.1 The earlier arrival

7.30am Focus-child PM19 arrives with PM19M. One of the toddlers also enters the room. S05 stops setting up the table activities for a moment to greet them both - PM19 hugs S05.

7.31am PM19 says goodbye to PM19M and she leaves. 7.32am PM19 walks over to S05 and, talking, goes into the storeroom with her as

she collects materials for the table activities. 7.33am Out of storeroom, S05 explains to the children that she needs more paint -

takes PM19 and the toddler down to the store in the toddlers’ playroom. 7.34am S05, PM19 and toddler return to the preschoolers’ playroom - PM19 puts

some additional paint-pots near the easel - then all three go through to the nursery.

In Vignette 5.2 the majority of the children had already arrived and the preschoolers and

toddlers had moved from the nursery to the preschoolers’ playroom. S01, S06, S14

and S15 were present - S01 was talking to a parent and each of the other three staff

were involved with one or more of the 16 toddlers and preschool-age children in the

playroom or in the adjacent children’s toilet.

Vignette 5.2 The later arrival

8.52am PF03 arrives with PF03M – PF03M goes to sign-in book - PF03 goes straight to painting table - joins PM19 and PM21 - PM21 immediately pushes PF03 away.

8.53am PF03 does not retaliate - stands still, says nothing - looks to PF03M – PF03M comes over and stands with PF03 while she sits down unhindered by PM21 and starts to paint

8.54am PF03M starts to leave - PF03 gets up - follows her to the preschoolers’ playroom gate - waves goodbye

8.55am PF03 walks away from gate - talks to toddler - moves on past playdough table - goes over to the puzzle table to talk to S06.

Unlike the less flexible programs of preschools and schools, the days in child care

centres generally have no communal starts, such as an assembly or early morning

circle-time to welcome everyone before the routines and activities begin. The centre in

the current study did not implement the first formal group setting until approximately

9.45am, 2 hours and 15 minutes after opening time. On most observation days staff

manage to greet each child on arrival and settle him or her into an activity. By 9.00am,

157

however, with toddlers and preschoolers combined in the one room, as well as parents

who wanted to talk to staff, new arrivals sometimes received only a welcoming word

and brief hug. Thus earlier starting children experience a totally different type of

beginning to each day in child care compared to later starting children.

Similarly, there were no ritualised endings to the day, such as the ringing of a “home-

time” bell, or a circle-time “farewell” for the attending group as a whole. Children left at

anytime, with the first regularly departing at approximately 1.45pm. Only six focus-

children experienced the slowing of activities and the smaller group in the nursery

setting at late afternoon. The majority exited the program in the middle of ongoing

events during the afternoon outdoor session, leaving games unfinished and, frequently,

friends devoid of partners. It is doubtful whether the 12 focus-children who regularly

departed the centre before 3.30pm had much experience of being left by their friends.

Consequently, children could be seen to have had different social and cultural

experiences of the child care centre as a result of their parents’ schedules.

5.3.1.1 The additional impact of sleeptime on selected children

While the practice of walking away from ongoing situations in the afternoon was in all

probability for most children more than compensated by their parent’s arrival, the

situation for the five children designated for an afternoon sleep was different again. On

each day of their attendance, they experienced having to leave friends and activities

after lunch to be taken to the toddlers’ playroom, which was used as the sleep room.

Frequently, these children returned to the preschoolers’ playroom either just before or

after the end of the indoor free play session and, sometimes, not until after the start of

outdoor free play. They not only had to leave their after-lunch activities on account of

“sleeptime”, but also had to negotiate entry to established situations after waking later in

the afternoon. The resultant additional experiences with peers and structure were not

part of the day for the other 25 participants in the study.

5.3.1.2 Unequal access to complex play

Apart from different experiences with staff and peers, the data also demonstrated that

as a result of their late arrival in the morning and/or interruptions for sleep periods

and/or early departure in the afternoon, some children regularly experienced less time

in specific settings, particularly free play structures, compared to other enrolled children.

Previous investigations have found that play period duration impacts on the complexity

of play (e.g., Boisen, 1992; Christie et al., 1988; Christie & Wardle, 1992), and that

access to opportunities for complex play is important for optimal child development and

158

associated behaviours (e.g., Dockett, 1995; Howes, 1980; Prescott, 1994). In the

current study, as detailed in Appendix 4, four focus-children experienced less than 15

minutes in the morning indoor free-play session, and another three experienced less

than 25 minutes in morning free play before the start of routine group activities. On a

number of occasions, the children scheduled for an afternoon sleep experienced less

than 15 minutes play before being led away to bed. Thus, there were fewer

opportunities for these children to gain the benefits of complex play that were available

to the earlier arriving children, those not scheduled for an afternoon sleep, and peers

who departed later in the afternoon.

5.3.2 Days of attendance each week

Another feature of child care is that children enrolled in centres do not have to attend in

common patterns of days or times as is required by schools and some preschools.

Parents using centre-based child care arrange for their children to attend from one to

five days each week. This practice creates a number of differences in the lives of

attending children. For example, children enrolled for one day each week have patterns

of attending the centre every seventh day of their lives, while for others enrolled more

than one day each week it may be every second and third day and may include

consecutive days. In addition to differences in the day-to-day patterning of their lives,

children attending four to five days each week accumulate more child care related

experiences in three months than those attending one day each week would

accumulate in a year. However, this generalisation is subject to the child’s arrival and

departure times on each day, which can impact on the total length of experience, as

seen in Figure 4.5.

Apart from the differences in the daily patterning of children’s lives, and the long-term

temporal experiences of children in child care, the variable attendance days of children

means that group compositions and peer group associations are likely to vary on each

day. Generally popular, dominant, or unpopular children, as well as the particular

friends or adversaries of individual children, may not attend every day. Therefore, a

child who is dominant among a group on one day may be subordinate to a more

dominant child in the different group on another day. As discussed later in this chapter,

the presence of particular children on certain days created combinations in dyads and

triads, leading to the production of behaviours that were not exhibited by the individuals

in different groups on different days.

The day-to-day experiences of individual children, as well as apparent regular

159

associations of peers on specific days, was subject to further disruption caused by

uncharacteristic later arrival or earlier departure; missed, extra, or swapped days;

and/or longer-term changes to the number of days enrolled each week, as reported in

the previous chapter (4.5.1; 4.5.2). The combination of variable days and hours of

attendance could be seen to considerably reduce the number of occasions when a child

attending child care experienced the same social and sequence of structural

components of the environment.

5.3.3 Differential experiences of structure

The third feature of child care centre operations, which makes attendance different to

that of schools and preschools, is the flexibility of the program. In the current study,

spasmodic variations to routines and structure on specific days combined with

differences in children’s attendance patterns to create unequal child:environment

experiences among the focus-children. The program variations were sometimes forced

on staff by weather conditions or special events, such children’s birthdays. At other

times, variations to the program resulted from spontaneous extensions to activities that

were judged popular or beneficial to the children. Regardless of reasons, however, the

outcome of these changes was that not all focus-children had the same opportunity to

experience the range of settings nominated by staff as the standard program of the

centre (see Appendix 4 for details of times each child spent in each setting). In

particular, formal group sessions, or circle-times, were particularly prone to being

omitted from the mid-morning and afternoon periods.

5.3.4 Conclusions about children’s experience of child care centres

In summary, the evidence from attendance-times data clearly indicates that the 30

focus-children each experienced considerable variation in their exposure to both

settings and situations. The patterns of arrival and departure times also suggests that

those variations may position individual children in different relationships with physical,

social, structural, and cultural factors within the environment of a child care centre. In

addition, family schedules that dictated late morning arrival and/or early afternoon

departure, and the requirement of some parents that their children should sleep in the

afternoon, resulted in these children experiencing consistently short play periods with

limited opportunities for complex play at various times throughout the day.

Apart from the immediate impact on child behaviours, the findings have implications for

research that focuses on the behaviour of children in child care centres generally.

Taken together, it appears difficult to assume that the supposed effect of any particular

160

child care centre experience can be considered equal for all attending children, or equal

for any child from one day to the next. Consequently, the current findings suggest that

caution needs to be exercised in generalising effects of child care centre enrolment on

young children without consideration of their individual attendance patterns. In

particular, arrival and departure times of individual children need to be examined in

relation to a centre’s program structure, with specific reference to the impact of

problems associated with group entry and short play periods.

5.4 Time and occurrences of UCBs

At first sight, the pattern of occurrences of UCBs appears completely random, with

contrasting counts across days, settings, and children (Appendix 5). Although some

individuals and minor patterns of dyads and triads accounted for the production of

UCBs in similar situations, none were consistent over the period of investigation. To

some extent, this pattern was in accord with variations in child care experience

discussed in the previous section. To identify any specific factors in accounting for

differences, further analysis was undertaken to interpret the occurrence of UCBs in

relation to time-of-day, day, month and season.

5.4.1 Timing of UCBs on different observation days

Although there is some suggestion in the literature that time-of-day impacts on

behaviours (e.g., Holloway, 1991; Smith & Connolly, 1980; Touchette et al., 1985), data

in the current study offered little support. Proportionate to the time-of-day when

observations were made, the early morning and late afternoon periods produced larger

numbers of UCBs than the middle of the day. On most days, UCBs peaked just before

morning tea at 10.00am, or just after lunch at 12.30pm (Figure 4.8). There was no

indication that activity built up slowly and reached a “vortex” in the middle of the day as

described by Holloway (1991). The majority of UCBs occurring on any day were

recorded before lunch on 27 days, after lunch on 18 days, with the morning and

afternoon sub-totals equal on 9 days (Appendix 5). Overall, frequency rates were

higher in the early morning with a trend towards lower levels in the late afternoon. It is

apparent that despite allowing for the sleep times of selected focus-children and the

variable delivery and collection times by parents, time-of-day did not overtly influence

the manifestation of UCBs by all focus-children.

5.4.2 Days, months and seasons as influences on UCBs

Data in the current study provided no evidence to suggest that any particular day or

month, during the period in which observations took place in the current study,

161

influenced the production of UCBs. Children experienced different environmental

conditions on each day, as observed by Touchette et al. (1985), but these differences

were related to variations in experiences of the program and peer group rather than the

ordinal position in the week of any particular day. The social, structural and cultural

characteristics of any day was dependent on the children and staff present in the

centre, as well as weather conditions and the influence of special events, such as the

previously mentioned birthday celebrations, rather than the day’s proximity to a

weekend.

Over the five months of data collection, no single month appeared to influence the

production of UCBs more than others. Although the observations were made in autumn

and winter, few children were seen to be suffering colds or other minor illnesses while in

attendance, which had been suggested as a potential influence on behaviour (O’Keefe,

1995). None of the children appeared to undergo any prolonged or significant mood

change, such as that indicating seasonal affective disorder in older children (Cooke &

Thompson, 1998; Giedd et al., 1998; Meesters, 1998; Swedo et al., 1997). Although a

greater number of UCBs were recorded in the first half of the observation schedule

(Figure 4.7), the pattern may have been related to the larger proportion of boys

observed during that period, and the higher level of UCBs exhibited by boys, rather than

implicating particular days, months, or the season as an influence.

5.4.3 Conclusions about variations in UCBs across days and times

Although confounded by variations in children’s hours of attendance and attendance

days, over weeks and months, there appears to be no specific pattern in occurrences of

UCBs that would suggest an influence of time-of-day, day, month, or season.

Anecdotally, the observer was unable to identify any differences in daily or monthly

occurrences of UCBs that were not also confounded by within-child characteristics,

differences in the composition of peer groups, or variations in activities and program

structure.

5.5 Variations in UCBs of the same child on different days

Although taken over small samples of days for each focus-child, the data indicated a

considerable range of variations in numbers of UCBs exhibited by the same child on

different days (Appendix 5). The lack of consistency in production of UCBs suggested

that within-child propensities, based on the wide range of attributes derived from nature

and nurture, could not account for the behaviour of children alone. The variations also

provided evidence that staff did not consistently target particular children for high levels

162

of response to UCBs, either as a result of intolerance or the implementation of a

specific behaviour management plan for an individual child. Rather, it appeared that a

different combination of peers, occasioned by variable attendance patterns of children,

reacted in concert with other environmental variables to create different situations on

each day. It is possible that perceptions of the context of these different situations,

derived from the child’s psychological habitat, played a major role in the production of

UCBs.

5.5.1 Inconsistent innate behaviour of individual focus-children

That the child’s contextualisation of situations may have been important was evidenced

by the capacity of most focus-children to change, at almost any time, an apparently

established pattern of reactive and proactive responses to settings. Although frequently

short-term, these sudden inversions of relationships not only within settings but also

with objects, peers and staff introduced a level of unpredictability that was seen to

impact on the number and frequencies of UCBs. In the following accounts of UCBs in

relation to individual children, there has been an unavoidable overlap of some physical,

social, structural, and cultural factors in the environment, although each component is

considered in greater detail later in this chapter.

An example of change in a pattern of behaviour was provided by PM09, who was

recorded as being involved in 289 UCBs or more than 20% of the entire total recorded

over 54 days. He was nominated as having instigated 219 of the events, with physical

hostility being used in 64. At the same time he was observed to have been the target of

UCBs instigated by 21 different children on 63 occasions, with 26 instances of physical

violence being used against him. By almost any standard form of assessment, the data

indicated that PM09 was a highly active and aggressive child. However, there were

times when he declined to be incited into a hostile interaction, even by PM21 who could

be described as one of his regular combatants and an established antagonist. The

following example was observed during an indoor free play session.

Vignette 5.3 Ignoring the challenge

PM09 is sitting alone at the round table in the home area working on a small Mobilo construction. Although he is “out-of-area” no staff have commented. PM21 comes over to the table and climbs onto the edge, on his knees in front of the Mobilo pieces. PM09 takes no notice, continues trying to fit two sections together. PM21 grins and shuffles closer, using his knees to push the pieces towards PM09. PM09 says nothing - gathers the Mobilo pieces and moves away from the table.

PM09’s reaction almost indicated subservience to the supposed dominance of PM21

163

and, if true, would have complied with models of dominance status observed to be

present within preschool age children (Hatch, 1987; La Freniere & Charlesworth, 1987;

Maynard, 1985; Pettit et al., 1990). However, PM09 rarely showed any signs of being

dominated by anyone and his response to PM21 on this occasion was quite different

(and unexpected) when compared with the more usual outcome of contact between the

boys. For example, the following episode that took place in the tree-seat digging area

during outside free play was more typical of PM09’s relationship with PM21 and a

number of other children.

Vignette 5.4 Responding to challenge

PM09 is standing on his own, prodding the earth with his spade when PM21 comes over and stands next to him. PM21 says something to PM09 and PM09 quietly replies (I cannot hear what is said but PM21 evidently does not like the response). PM21 steps back, turns, and punches PM09 in the face. With both hands PM09 swings the spade into PM21’s face, knocking him to the ground. PM21 gets up, crying, and runs to S06.

The differences in PM09’s reaction to PM21’s provocation on both occasions cannot be

easily explained in relation to environmental factors. While one incident took place

outdoors and the other indoors, both involved PM09 playing alone during a free play

session when he was targeted by PM21. PM09’s different behaviour could be

explained as general and long recognised differences in reactions to the overt

aggression of physical attack compared to non-verbal incitement or instrumental

aggression, such as that described in the first incident (Bandura, 1973; Hartup, 1974).

However, acceptance of such a rationale is dependent on consideration of

consequences of the interaction without taking account of the full behaviour stream, the

omission of which is likely to distort meaning (Barker, 1963b). As the vignettes show,

PM21’s overt aggression that elicited PM09’s violent retaliation came after PM09’s

verbal response to PM21’s initial (and apparent) verbal provocation, whereas, PM09 did

not respond to PM21’s earlier non-verbal provocation at the table. Although body

language and facial expression clearly indicated that PM21 was deliberately trying to

incite PM09, which more than likely would have been understood by him (Camras,

1977; Hestenes et al., 1993; Keating & Bai, 1986), PM09 chose not to respond.

In the absence of any findings comparing children’s reactions to verbal versus non-

verbal aggression, it must be concluded that PM09’s decision to ignore PM21 in the first

vignette was probably due to transient mood or other within-child characteristics that

were subject to change over a short period. An influence on his decision may also have

included a desire for solitude, which is discussed further later in this chapter (5.7.11).

164

Most children at various times in different settings exhibited similar contrasts in the way

they responded to peers, although actions took different forms. For example, PM18,

who ranked second among all focus-children for involvement in R&T play and seldom

passed by an opportunity to indulge, had been wrestling with three boys on the

carpeted area. Staff intervention had curtailed the interaction and all four combatants

had been guided to other activity areas that were not directly supervised. In the past,

this method of behaviour management in relation to curtailing group R&T play had been

observed as ineffective in subduing the boys for long. However, when PM13 not

unexpectedly tried to re-start R&T play at the playdough table a few minutes later,

PM18 responded by reporting his “misbehaviour” to S10. Although PM18 had not

previously exhibited any particular interest in playdough modeling, the reporting

appeared to be a strategy PM18 used to discourage PM13’s advances rather than get

his wrestling partner into trouble. Similar to PM09’s unanticipated response to PM21,

noted earlier, PM18 could have been seeking rest and solitude by using the playdough

activity, a strategy Sylva et al. (1980) had observed being used by other children.

Nevertheless, declining an invitation to R&T play was out of character for PM18 and the

consequences added an unexpected UCB to the observed total.

In other situations, reporting of a friend’s misbehaviour to staff also added an aspect of

unpredictability to the behaviours of other children in the group and cast doubts on the

stability of dyadic relationships. At times, however, reporting appeared to be motivated

by factors other than simply curtailing the immediate actions of a peer, or maintaining

solitude, as exemplified by the following episode.

Vignette 5.5 Eating lollies

PF05 walks over to her bag in the locker area, followed by PF03 and PF06 (with whom she has been playing matching cards). PF05 gets a tube of lollies out of her bag, crouches down in the corner of the locker area, out of sight of staff, and shares the lollies with the other two girls. PF03 also crouches down and PF06 stands in front of them - all are shielded from staff view and have not been noticed. After eating for approximately two minutes, PF06 walks over to S05 and reports PF05 having lollies.

S05 immediately called out to PF05 to put the lollies away. PF05 complied and ran off

laughing with PF03. Both were then joined by PF06 and the three continued friendly

play in other activities without any apparent animosity attached to the reporting.

The above example, of a friend reporting the misdeeds of others without apparent

damage to the overall amity, was not an isolated one. These types of actions may

165

reflect several aspects of within-child propensities and other attitudes characterised as

temperament. As discussed in Chapter Two, however, a number of studies have urged

a cautious approach to linking temperament to early childhood behaviours (Greenberg

et al., 1993; Hemphill, 1996; Robins, 1991). The reporting could be connected to

matters of security and conflicts among friends (Dunn & McGuire, 1992; Isaacs, 1933),

or attempts to exert control over partners (La Freniere & Charlesworth, 1987).

Notwithstanding this or other explanations, the main issues for the current study were

the amount of unpredictability such reporting introduced into the behaviours of

individual children, their relationships with peers, and the subsequent variations in the

number of UCBs it generated.

5.5.2 Conclusions about within-child characteristics

It appears evident from the above accounts that within-child characteristics played an

important role in the manifestation of UCBs. It appeared equally evident, however, that

expression of propensities for specific behaviours, emanating from both nature and

nurture, may not have been entirely stable or consistent and that situational factors also

exerted a major influence on child behaviours. Utilising the concept of the child’s

psychological habitat as a mediating factor in children’s reactions to situations helps

explain why expected child responses to familiar situations may have been

subordinated, at times, by unexpected responses that appear out of character. It also

helps to view the wide variations in UCBs across time and places as less chaotic and

more likely to have been dependent on child:environment relationships not yet fully

understood. Therefore, further analysis was undertaken and interpretation focussed on

group characteristics identified in the literature as gender-based.

5.6 Gender and UCBs

In addition to variations in occurrences of UCBs across time-of-day, days, and

individual children, the data also indicated differences in the overall proportions of

UCBs attributed to males compared to females. Similar to the interpretation of data in

relation to individual children, there has been an unavoidable overlap of some physical,

social, structural, and cultural factors, although the discussion focuses on gender.

The raw figures for numbers of children, times of attendance, and duration of

observations indicate a consistent proportional representation of approximately 40%

females to 60% males (Tables 4.2 and 4.3). However, the findings show that compared

to girls, boys were credited with UCBs at the higher overall ratio of 23:77 and an

average frequency rate 2.5 times greater than that for girls (section 4.7.4). Overall, the

166

data on UCBs in the current study shares some similarities with the literature that, for

some time, has portrayed boys as more prone to problem behaviours than are girls

(e.g., Bandura, 1973; Charlesworth & Dzur, 1987; Hartup, 1974; Hinde et al., 1983;

Ochiltree & Edgar, 1995; Rutter et al., 1979; Sanson, Prior, et al., 1993; Zahn-Waxler,

1993).

Although the 38:62 girl:boy ratio of UCBs produced during formal groups was closer to

the 40:60 ratio of girl:boy focus-child population, it extended to 21:79 UCBs during both

the indoor and outdoor free play compounded settings. The greater number of UCBs

attributed to boys could be accounted for by implicating aspects of both the structure

and culture of the centre. For example, it is generally accepted in the literature that

boys exhibit more active behaviours than girls (e.g., Biddulph, 1997; Moir & Jessel,

1991; Roopnarine, 1984). At the same time, outside free play sessions, in particular,

provide opportunities for more physical activities compared to sessions under greater

staff direction. Add to these two points that the literature has also contended that highly

visible motoric activity tends to attract more staff attention (e.g., Schachar et al., 1986;

Tieger, 1980; Vlietstra, 1981), and it is not surprising that figures for male UCBs would be

higher than those for girls in outdoor free play sessions.

However, the observational records showed that the boys produced more than twice the

number of UCBs during the less active indoor free play, with a higher frequency rate, than

they did in the potentially highly active outdoor sessions (Table 4.8). Therefore, the data

were examined further to identify the types of behaviours exhibited by girls and boys, and

the relationship between those behaviours and environmental factors.

5.6.1 Gender-based behaviours

Apart from higher levels of activity, the literature has consistently labeled boys as

noisier and more aggressive than girls (e.g., Bandura, 1973; Charlesworth & Dzur, 1987;

Hartup, 1974; Hinde et al., 1983; Ochiltree & Edgar, 1995; Rutter et al., 1979;

Zahn-Waxler, 1993), which could be expected to produce greater numbers of UCBs. On

the other hand, as discussed in Chapter One, defining aggression invites considerable

difficulties. Consequently, the 1384 UCBs were categorised as involving either verbal

only or physical interactions. At the same time, behaviour streams were examined for

evidence of instrumental and relational forms of aggression, which researchers have

found to occur more frequently in the problem behaviour of females (Björkqvist et al.,

1992; Crick, 1995; Crick & Grotpeter, 1995; Rutter et al., 1979). The outcome of the

examination is discussed below.

167

5.6.1.1 Physically active versus verbal-only UCBs

The data clearly showed that boys exhibited a greater number of UCBs with a

predominantly physical component than did the girls (Table 4.14). However, the

greatest differences were in friendly encounters, in which boys prompted 193 staff

interventions or nearly 18% of their total number of UCBs. The percentage was almost

twice that of the girls, who produced 33 UCBs involving physical interaction within

friendly encounters, representing 9.7% of their total. The data for R&T play clearly

illustrates the variation in play styles or preferences between the genders. Boys were

involved in a total of 59 (5.6%) UCBs involving R&T play, while girls were involved in

three (<1%) of their total number of UCBs.

The difference in UCBs between the genders was less in the category of physically

hostile encounters. While boys were involved in 220 physically hostile UCBs in dyads,

triads, and groups of more than three, the number represented 21% of the total number

of UCBs involving male focus-children. Girls, on the other hand, were involved in only

58 physically hostile UCBs with others, but this number represented 18% of all UCBs

involving female focus-children. In terms of physical aggression as a percentage of all

UCBs, therefore, the differences between the aggressive behaviour of boys and girls

were not great.

To a limited extent, these findings appear to be in agreement with earlier studies that

contended little differences between male and female aggression before the age of five

years (Maccoby & Jacklin, 1980: Rutter & Garmezy, 1983; Tieger, 1980). However, the

classification of R&T play as non-hostile in the current study, and the reliance on staff

interventions to identify UCBs, confound direct comparisons with many other studies on

children’s physical aggression.

5.6.1.2 Verbal and relational forms of aggression

In contrast to physical aggression, the current study also categorised peer associated

UCBs into verbally hostile encounters (Table 4.14). The percentage of female UCBs

entailing verbal hostility in dyads (33.75%) and triads (25%) was higher than the overall

percentage of female accredited UCBs (23.48%). However, no verbally hostile UCBs

involving a female focus-child within groups of more than three children were observed

and there was no evidence of groups of children “ganging up” on one child. Although

the data appeared to lend some support to the notion of differential female aggression,

the overall female UCB rate is well below their 40% proportion of focus-child population

and observation time. It does not appear, therefore, that the female focus-children in

168

the current study were any more verbally hostile in their relationships with peers and

toddlers than were the males. It was observed, for example, that a large amount of

verbal aggression exhibited by boys and girls was related to protests and complaints

about peer behaviour. At the same time, a quantity was directed at peers in efforts to

maintain social order in games and to preserve dramatic play scenarios from

destruction by others. The defences often involved attempts to exclude others from

groups or play areas which could, under some circumstances, be interpreted as a form

of relational aggression (Crick, 1995). At the same time, it is acknowledged that the

data collection strategy did not facilitate the detailed recording of conversations

between children. Therefore, it is possible that UCBs with a component of relational

aggression may have gone unrecorded.

Only three clear instances of child:child relational aggression were registered, twice

between the same two girls (PF05 and PF06) and the other between two boys (PM03

and PM20). A single instance involving the girls resulted in teacher attention to PF06

who was visibly upset. Neither of the other incidents led to teacher intervention and the

events were not classified as UCBs. As a consequence of the low rate of evidence for

its occurrence, relational aggression cannot be accorded any significance in the current

study.

5.6.1.3 Instrumental aggression

Studies reviewed in Chapter Two found that object-related, or instrumental, aggression

was likely to be equally exhibited by girls and boys (Berkowitz, 1993; Hegland & Rix,

1990; Howes et al., 1994). Although the assumption appeared to be that encounters

were about ownership or control of objects, Sims (1997) suggested that objects were

frequently used instrumentally by children as a means of attempting group entry. Data

for the current study evidenced that in 105 verbally and physically hostile UCBs

characterised by instrumental aggression, all were concerned with taking or maintaining

possession of objects (Tables 4.15 & 4.16). There was no evidence of objects being

used as part of a group entry strategy.

Preschoolers initiated 98 object-related UCBs, while toddlers and babies initiated the

remaining seven, with preschool females being targeted in two and boys being the

targets in five. Female preschoolers initiated 34 object-related UCBs compared to 64

initiated by preschool boys, which was closer to the 40:60 proportions of the genders

than the much higher 23:77 female:male ratio of overall UCBs. Therefore, findings in

the current study indicated that the wide variation in UCBs between the genders may be

169

less marked in those identified as involving instrumental or object-related aggression,

which is in some agreement with Hartup (1974).

It should be noted, however, that two females (PF03 and PF14) were responsible for

initiating more than half the total of all instrumental UCBs exhibited by females.

Similarly, two males (PM09 and PM19) were responsible for more than half of all object-

related UCBs exhibited by males. The residue of 47 instrumental UCBs were exhibited

by 19 different focus- and two nonfocus-children in a range of one to five UCBs each,

with six focus-children initiating none. The skewed distribution suggested that individual

within-child characteristics apart from gender, may play a defining role in children’s

involvement in object-related UCBs.

5.6.2 Conclusions about gender and UCBs

Overall, the data indicated that boys were involved in more UCBs than girls, even when

specific types of behaviours thought more predominant in females were considered.

However, the differences were not as prevalent in some areas as they were in others,

with the role of friendly encounters and the previously discussed ambiguity of R&T play

being a confounding factor. The possibility that staff targeted boys’ UCBs to a greater

extent than they targeted females, particularly on account of higher activity levels of

boys’ play, is considered later in this chapter (5.10).

5.7 Physical factors in the environment and UCBs

Overall, the design of the centre and layout of activities appeared to have little direct

influence on the manifestation of unwanted child behaviours of most children. Although

specific areas could be identified as settings for numbers of UCBs, there were few

similarities in the characteristics of the UCBs and the location appeared often to be

secondary to the activities taking place in that location, a point highlighted in the survey

undertaken by Gruss et al. (1998). As the current investigation did not incorporate any

experimental manipulation of settings, however, this conclusion can only be made with

reference to general expectation for relationships between behaviour and buildings

raised in the literature. As a consequence of this limitation, the present discussion

focuses mainly on the indoor open areas of the nursery and preschoolers’ playroom,

with further comment about the children’s toilet. At the same time, a number of related

issues are raised about the identification of behaviours and the impact the process had

on the analysis of location data.

170

5.7.1 The nursery and preschoolers’ playroom

Figure 3.3 depicting a floor plan of the nursery, and Figure 3.4, depicting a floor plan of

the preschoolers’ playroom, both indicate the extent of open space available to children.

Although part of the nursery and preschoolers’ playroom floor was covered with

carpets, which provided a contrast in colours and texture with the vinyl covered sections

of the floor area, there were no permanent constructions dividing activity areas.

5.7.2 Open spaces and running

Over a lengthy period, a number of authors have suggested that open spaces

encourage running in young children (e.g., Gump, 1971; Neill, 1982; Watkins & Durant,

1992). In the current study, however, only 15 of the 30 focus-children attracted staff

intervention for running in the playrooms, for a total of 34 UCBs or a little over 3% of all

the 1067 UCBs exhibited indoors. Although no studies have suggested a standard that

determines an average amount of running indoors, the number in the present findings is

less than many other categories of unwanted activities observed over the period of

investigation. This suggests that the number was not relatively excessive and,

therefore, did not portray the limited amount of open space in the nursery and

preschoolers’ playrooms as being a particularly powerful influence over child

behaviours involving running.

However, another issue raised by examination of the behaviour streams in relation to

running indoors, was the limitation on assessing environmental influence on children’s

behaviour imposed by describing only a child’s actions. Gump’s (1971) proposal for

physiognomic perceptions, mentioned in Chapter Two, suggests that children run for

the sake of running. No particular importance appears to be ascribed to the possibility

of other purposes. In the current study, for example, eight instances of running inside

were by solitary children who may well have been running for running’s sake, although

three of the eight were running towards the children’s toilet, which suggests another

reason. Of the remaining 26 UCBs involving running, four resulted from children

running away from physically hostile encounters and 22 were components of friendly

and exuberant games in 19 dyads and three triads.

Although open space may have facilitated running for the majority of children, the extent

of environmental influence of the physical setting on their activity may have been

confounded by the excitement of friendly games, fear of physical harm, or the need to

use the toilet.

171

5.7.3 Open spaces and hitting, kicking, and pushing

Other writers have contended that open indoor spaces encourage aggressive

behaviours (Balcombe & Tansey, 1996; Neill & Denham, 1982). Representing

aggressive behaviours in the current study, hitting, kicking and pushing accounted for

some of the action in 101 or just over 9% of all indoor UCBs, yielding a frequency rate

of one every 48 minutes. Again, there are difficulties in assessing the extent of

“encouragement” without reference to any indication of a normative value. As a

comparison, however, outdoor free play yielded 32 UCBs with similar violent actions

initiated by focus-children, which provided a frequency rate of one every 39 minutes.

No studies have been found that compare indoor occurrences of aggressive behaviours

with similar behaviours exhibited by the same groups of children outdoors. There

appears to be little evidence, therefore, that the indoor rate is comparatively excessive,

as a result of encouragement accorded by open planning, or anything else.

Additionally, more detailed examination of the locations show that only nine of the 101

indoor UCBs involving aggressive acts were sited in the more open vinyl surfaced area

of the preschoolers’ playroom. The majority occurred in activity areas or at activity

tables, although only seven were judged to be concerned with gaining or maintaining

possession of objects, which is in some contrast to the findings of some earlier studies

(e.g., Parke & Slaby, 1983; Sanson & Di Muccio, 1993; Sherburne et al., 1988). In the

current study, the data indicated that most violent conflicts were concerned with

dominance and social control, which is in some agreement with Hartup and Laursen

(1993). However, it was observed that these encounters were more likely to take place

in defined areas where the setting and activity provided a backdrop to, or a cover for,

child:child aggressive exchanges.

A more defining feature of the manifestation of aggressive behaviours may be that 69

UCBs, or 52% of the sub-total for hitting, kicking, and pushing, both indoors and

outdoors, were initiated by the same three boys (PM09, PM19, and PM21). These

numbers may indicate greater significance for within-child propensities for aggressive

behaviours rather than an overall effect of space. More probable, however, is that

these three boys asserted more dominance and social manipulation behaviours and,

therefore, not only the setting but peers also contributed to expressions of aggressive

behaviours. At the same time, the meaning or intent of apparently violent actions may

also have to be considered.

172

5.7.3.1 The meaning of hits, kicks and pushes

As discussed in Chapter One, categorising any behaviour described as aggressive is

imbued with possibilities for misinterpretation, which has the potential to distort

understandings of environmental influences on child behaviours. It was noted in the

current study, for example, that at least five categories of “pushing” could be

differentiated in form and function. These included: (a) pushing as a form of attack,

often with both hands; (b) pushing to discourage group entry, usually one handed; (c)

pushing as a form of social control (similar to “herding”) which also used closer body

contact; (d) pushing as a means of fending off attack, interference, or over-friendly body

contact, which usually involved a sideways or sweeping action; and (e) pushing as a

form of friendly greeting or prelude to R&T play, often using both hands but bent at the

elbows to allow close body contact. Thus, the pushing category contains several

pushing acts that took place within friendly encounters or produced accidental

outcomes.

While fewer in number, differences in forms of hitting, similar to those noted by Shantz

(1987), and kicking were also observed to result in UCBs. These included “mock”

fighting (2 UCBs), role plays of fight scenes from cartoons (2 UCBs), and “friendly” kicks

(2 UCBs), which were all recognised by the targets as non-hostile. The following

vignette exemplifies a number of these issues in a double episode of R&T play.

Vignette 5.6 Pretend fighting

PM18 walks across to the carpeted area near home, grabs PM13 by the arms and without a word being spoken pushes him over onto floor. PM05 comes across windmilling his arms at PM18. PM18 turns and hits PM05 with his hat then stands in a threatening pose ready to hit him again. PM05 turns away and goes to get his hat from his bag, returns and starts hitting PM18 with it. PM13 is looking on. No words have been exchanged to this point. S05 comes over and tells both to put their hats in their bags. Both boys go to the bag area and put their hats away. PM18 returns to the carpet. PM16 pulls him to the ground and kicks him (role play) - PM18 roles over and plays “dead”. PM05 returns to the carpet, PM18 gets up and a general R&T play ensues between PM18, PM16 and PM05, with PM13 looking on.

Clearly, the players all understood the non-hostile intent of the pushing, pulling, hitting

with caps, and the kick. Despite intervention by S05 the game continued once she had

left the scene. It was curtailed a few moments later by the return of S05 and the

directing of participants to other activities.

173

5.7.3.2 Variations in the intent of peer association

Vignette 5.6 illustrates the well documented problems encountered in trying to

determine the meaning of ambiguous exchanges and distinguishing R&T or play

fighting from real fighting (e.g., Feshbach, 1955; Goldstein, 1992; Porter, 1994; Sanson,

Smart et al., 1993; Shantz, 1987; Turner, 1991; Zoccolillo, 1993). In the current study, it

was also observed that the supposed intent of participants can change rapidly with

children in the preschool-age group, as demonstrated by the related Vignettes 5.7 and

5.8, concerned with the relationship between two boys in the morning nursery free play

setting. Figure 5.1 illustrates the positions of relevant play items and furniture in the

nursery playroom.

Figure 5.1 Typical early morning nursery playroom activity and equipment layout

Vignette 5.7 Rocking the boat

PM20 is sitting on his own in the boat. PM07 comes over and starts to rock the boat. PM20 makes gurgling noises with the motion then pushes PM07 away (with one hand) and starts to rock the boat on his own. PM07 steps aside, picks up a baby’s rattle from the floor and gives it to PM20. PM20 tosses the rattle to one side and hits PM07 in the face with his hand. PM07 says nothing - walks away.

To the observer it appeared that PM07 had made two attempts to initiate friendly play

and twice had been rejected by PM20 who had used increasing violence. PM07 had

then left the boat and walked over to the toy shelves while PM20 remained sitting for

approximately two minutes before getting up and playing his part in the following

episode.

174

Vignette 5.8 Throwing the baby’s rattle

PM20 gets out of the boat and walks across to the fort, climbs in, looks around, climbs out, goes across to the toy shelf, picks up a baby’s rattle and, without facial expression or saying anything, throws it at PM07, hitting him on the leg. PM07 says nothing and also without expression picks up the rattle and throws it at PM20, hitting him on the body. PM20 is still without expression and still says nothing, but he picks up the rattle and almost ritualistically throws it again, hitting PM07 on the head. This time PM07 laughs and, with a little more hurry, throws the rattle back at PM20, hitting him on the head - both laugh. TF04 comes over to join in - PM20 pushes her away (with one hand – to prevent group entry), picks up a soft rubber ball, throws it at PM07 and hits him in the face. PM07 returns the throw and hits PM20 on the head. TF04 runs in and picks up the ball - PM20 and PM07 try to wrestle the ball from her - all laughing.

Despite staff interventions on four separate occasions, the sequence continued for

almost four minutes with PM20 and PM07 hitting each other over the head with a plastic

bin, throwing the ball, and chasing each other with a hoopla-stand. From what

appeared to be a hostile relationship in the beginning, PM20 and PM07 were involved

in a variety of friendly events encompassing R&T play, shooting guns, and throwing

books at each other, for most of the day. In between these events, however, there

were also moments of antagonism and physical hostility, resulting in harm to PM07 and

complaints by him to staff about PM20’s rough behaviour.

The changeable nature of the dyadic exchanges required each point of contact to be

judged on its own merits as either friendly or hostile, with little guidance being provided

by supposed friendships or prior relationships. In Vignette 5.7, for example, the author

initially rated PM20’s responses to PM07’s friendly approaches as hostile and violent.

In the light of events a few minutes later, however, it is possible to interpret PM20’s

pushing and hitting as an attempt to initiate R&T play, albeit relatively unskilled and

harmful to PM07. The possibility is supported by the fact that PM20 was credited with

initiating more UCBs involving R&T play than anyone else over the entire 54 day

observation period.

Previous research has examined the relationship between children’s aggression and

deficient cognitive processing (e.g., Courtney & Cohen, 1996; Crick & Dodge, 1996;

McKeough et al., 1994). The main focus has been on the inability of the receiver of

messages to recognise the intent of others, particularly in ambiguous situations. The

potential problems associated with children’s lack of skills in sending or coding

messages of intent has been addressed far less often. Gruss et al. (1998) reported

teachers as blaming poor language skills for aggressive behaviours, but these

suggestions are more frequently based on the notion of physical actions being used as

175

a substitute for words. The observations in the current study suggest that some

children may not have mastered sufficient non-verbal communication skills to deliver

unambiguous messages, leaving the receiver confused through no fault of his or her

own.

Similar alternate friendly/conflictual relationships were observed for a number of focus-

children in various dyads with babies, toddlers and other preschoolers in a variety of

situations. Because these ambiguous exchanges have, primarily, social intent, they

tend to occur separate from specific activities. Consequently, there is the possibility

that they will be seen as emanating from open spaces or specific activity areas such as

“home”.

5.7.4 The home area

The data showed that more than 10% of all observed UCBs took place in the home

area. Staff intervened in 146 events initiated by 26 of the 30 focus-children, and three

toddlers, during 30 of the 54 observation days. These figures appear sufficiently wide-

spread across the population to support the findings of other studies that have identified

home area as one of the more conflict prone areas (e.g., Gruss et al., 1998; Hartup &

Laursen, 1993). Closer examination of the current data, however, suggests that for a

number of UCBs the location was not necessarily a major factor in its own right.

R&T play, for example, was nominated as a reason for staff intervention in six of the

UCBs located in the home area. To some extent the data is in accord with Pellegrini

(1984) who suggested that older boys used the home area infrequently and when they

did it was more likely to be for R&T play. In most cases observed in the current study,

the home area activities were incidental to R&T play (for example, see Vignette 5.17).

The data provided support for this interpretation in that over the entire observation

period, 62 UCBs were attributed to R&T play in 20 different indoor locations. All but

seven incidents took place on the carpeted areas, which suggested that the softer floor

covering might have been a greater influence on children’s instigation of R&T play in

the observed locations than other components of the home, block or book areas.

Adding further support to the contention that the intended activity in the home behaviour

setting had little to do with UCBs involving R&T play, were the observations that the

area was the site for several other types of UCBs that were similarly unrelated to home-

area imaginative play. These included shooting guns (2), running inside (4),

construction materials being out-of-area (5), throwing objects (5), using furniture for

176

climbing on or hiding within that was unconnected to any home area play at the time

(13), and defying staff directives (7), which were distinct from ignoring staff directives on

account of being engrossed in appropriate play. Together, these extraneous activities

account for almost 30% of the UCBs recorded as being located in the home area.

Part of the cause of home area being used for other purposes, apart from the soft floor

covering, may have been related to its position between the block and book area on a

large carpeted area, as illustrated by Figure 5.2.

Figure 5.2 Typical preschoolers’ playroom activity and equipment layout

Despite the use of different coloured carpets, augmented by placement of home

furniture and storage shelves as space dividers to help separate the functions of the

three areas, the unity of the entire back area of the room as a “soft area” suitable for

floor-based activities was still apparent. Consequently, the regular movement of

children across and through all three supposedly dedicated spaces was frequently

observed, leading to play objects being taken “out-of-area”, children transferring

activities across areas, and the misuse of equipment, materials and furniture.

It is possible, therefore, to cite poorly defined activity areas as the reason for some

UCBs, particularly those that involved children misusing an area as a site for R&T play

or a passage for running, and those involving conflicts between these children and

others using the particular facilities and resources for appropriate play. On the other

177

hand, it is less easy to blame poor definition of areas when a child deliberately set out

to disrupt the play of others. The data provided numerous clear cases of children’s

attempts to exert dominance over others and one example is illustrated in Vignette 5.9.

For some time PF13 had been in the home area with two toddlers and was preparing

“milkshakes” with containers on the wooden sink unit. PM19 had just completed a floor

puzzle he had been working on in the book area adjacent to the home area.

Vignette 5.9 Spilling the milkshake

PM19 gets up from the floor, turns and stands behind the sink unit. He watches PF13 for a few moments then starts rocking the sink backwards and forwards until the containers fall onto the floor. PF13 screams at PM19 - S10 comes over and PF13 tells S10 that PM19 has upset her (make-believe) banana milkshake. S10 guides PM19 away from home area. PF13 retrieves the containers and hands out milkshakes to the toddlers.

The deliberate use of home area for alternative activities, involving the transfer of

equipment of materials from other areas, was also observed. While most appeared to

be spontaneous extensions of play, others were planned and carefully executed to

avoid detection by staff, as seen in the following vignette.

Vignette 5.10 Deliberately out-of-area

PF05 and PF06 are standing at the Lego bin in the block area. PF05 walks over to home corner with a handful of Lego pieces and puts them in the wooden oven - S10 is scanning children and activities in the playroom but does not see what PF05 has done. PF06 is still standing by the Lego storage bin with a handful of pieces, watching S10. When S10 turns away PF06 follows PF05 across to the home area and also puts the pieces into the oven.

The girls then enacted imaginative play in which the Lego pieces were used as cakes.

A little later, one of the boys grabbed a handful of the pieces and ran off, with PF06 in

pursuit, leading to an UCB and discovery of the misplaced Lego.

5.7.5 Block area

The same variable pattern of unrelated UCBs was observed among the 79 staff

interventions in the block area. While shooting guns could have been expected, since

the “weapons” were constructed from blocks (4), other activities, such as running (7),

games with sheets (3), R&T play (3), and climbing (3), appeared to have little

connection with the location or the staff-designated function of the block play area.

A number of studies have suggested that the block area is particularly conflict prone

(Gruss et al., 1998; Hartup & Laursen, 1993; Moore, 1997b). However, data from the

178

current investigation shows that only 34 UCBs, or 43% of the sub-total credited to the

block area in the preschoolers’ playroom, had an aetiology in hostile conflict. At least

four of these incidents were not related to block play and another two were extensions

of on-going conflicts that started outside the block area. Nevertheless, disputes over

ownership of particular types of blocks (9), and deliberate damage to constructions (5),

were directly implicated in most of the hostile encounters, but not necessarily the cause.

In common with all conflicts, however, they occurred only if both children participated in

the hostility, and the data shows that this was not always the case. Similar to the earlier

example of PM09’s response to PM21’s incitement in the home area (Vignette 5.3),

PF01 declined to respond in kind to PM09’s attack, as the following vignette shows.

Vignette 5.11 Does not retaliate

PF01 is sitting on the floor of the block area constructing a building with some large wooden blocks. PM09 walks over and swings his dinosaur model at the building, knocking part of it down. PF01, who is probably 30 cm taller than PM09 and does not appear to be intimidated, stares at him but does not retaliate. PM09 returns the stare then deliberately completes the destruction. PF01 ignores PM09 completely, turns 180 degrees and restarts construction. PM09 stands looking at PF01’s back for a moment, then walks away.

The example illustrates that while activity areas may provide the setting for potential

conflicts, confrontations developed and enriched the setting with expectations for further

conflicts only if the participants were predisposed to confront each other. Clearly, the

psychological habitat of the child, including within-child characteristics, which give rise

to certain attitudes towards particular peers and beliefs in the efficacy of specific

strategies for dealing with interference, all play a role in determining children’s response

behaviours. Therefore, block corner and block activities will be the scene for

aggressive behaviours only if children who are predisposed to aggression are

confronted by others equally predisposed, under circumstances where the

psychological habitats of both are amenable to an aggressive encounter, and the

structure of the setting provides the opportunity for both children to give vent to their

aggression. The need for all conditions to be satisfied prior to an aggressive incident

occurring helps explain the apparent inconsistencies in the production of UCBs across

time and space.

In addition, it was noted that many UCBs did not involve aggression by any participants.

For example, it was also observed that a further 15 UCBs allocated to the block area

resulted from friendly interactions involving dyads and triads, and were composed of

179

shootings, running, and R&T play cited earlier, all of which had little to do with block

play. The area also contributed to three accidents: one case of a child being stepped

upon while working on the floor and two resulting from hits by blocks being mishandled.

More surprisingly, perhaps, 27 UCBs, or more than one-third, emanated from 12

children working alone at various times in the block area. Throwing blocks on the

ground or otherwise misusing equipment accounted for 11 UCBs. Most of the throwing

incidents involved boys working on their own and appeared to reflect the child’s

frustration as a result of building collapses caused, mainly, by an inability to efficiently

balance blocks on top of each other. Another seven UCBs occurred as a result of

ignoring or defying staff directives, mainly in relation to packing blocks away. The latter

category appeared more closely related to the aversion of some children to be involved

in clean up routines than being attributable to the blocks as an activity.

5.7.6 The children’s toilet

The children’s toilet was a site for 40 UCBs exhibited by 16 different focus-children, and

appears to be a good example of a specific physical location influencing the

manifestations of UCBs. While playing with water in the washbowls was cited as a

reason for staff intervention on nine occasions involving six children, the remaining

UCBs covered a range of solitary and peer group activities. These included using too

much soap or wasting towels, queue jumping or standing in front of the mirrors too long,

as well as numerous minor conflicts, R&T play, and making too much noise. Many of

these episodes appeared to be aided by the relative physical seclusion of the toilet area

from other indoor and outdoor activities.

Alternatively, the influence of the children’s toilet on a number of UCBs may have been

related to the access it provided to mirrors and for water play. The preschoolers’

playroom provided little opportunity for children to use mirrors. Similarly, no provision

was made for water play at any time during the observation period, although cool

autumn and winter seasonal factors may have been responsible. Nevertheless, the

omission of both activities from the normal program may have contributed to children’s

interest in the toilet area.

5.7.7 Social and spatial density

The relatively confined space within the children’s toilet also gave rise to crowding for

brief periods during some routines. Similarly, crowding occurred in home and block

areas on occasions, and in the sandpit as well as on the wooden fort at various times.

However, the data provided no evidence to suggest that either social or spatial density

180

was more than a passing influence on the production of UCBs in short-lived situations

surrounding the transient popularity of a specific activity. The data appeared to confirm

the view expressed by a number of investigators that neither form of density on its own

is necessarily perceived by children as a particular problem (e.g., Endler, 1981;

Greenman, 1988; Hartup & Laursen, 1993; Larson et al., 1990). Observations also

supported the contention of Maxwell (1996) that the impact of crowding may be

mitigated by opportunities to withdraw from crowds. In addition, it was observed that

when crowding appeared evident, children’s behaviours were clearly concerned with

subsidiary matters such as maintaining the leadership role or possession of objects.

5.7.8 Resource availability

A number of studies have associated resource scarcity as a likely stimulus for problem

behaviours (e.g., Brown, 1996; Rohe & Patterson, 1974; Smith & Connolly, 1980). As

previously mentioned, however, the centre in the current study was reasonably well

equipped and able to sustain a wide range of indoor and outdoor activities. Temporary

resource shortages were observed only during periods when staff were delayed

replenishing paint or paper supplies to specific table activities, as illustrated in Figure

3.6. Therefore, resource scarcity could not be linked to the regular production of UCBs.

5.7.9 Climbing and standing on objects

Five girls and 10 boys on a total of 54 occasions initiated climbing or standing on 18

different types of objects. Inside the preschoolers’ playroom, the favourite climb was

onto the windowsill of the circular window overlooking the front carpark (5 UCBs),

followed by the easy chairs (4 UCBs) and tables (4 UCBs). Outdoors, the woodwork

bench (4 UCBs) and stored metal climbing frames (4 UCBs), both of which were kept

on the verandah, were the most popular targets for climbing. In most cases, the act of

climbing was an end in itself, with 48 climbs made by children acting alone. Many

children appeared to climb and sit or stand until noticed by staff. The following vignette

provides a typical example of a climbing event.

Vignette 5.12 Climbing the chair stack

PF13 helping with packing away the outside equipment before lunch, wheels her barrow into the store. Comes away from the store and walks along the verandah to a stack of 8-9 chairs, approximately 150 cm high. PF13 climbs the stack and sits on the top chair. S10 comes out of the store and notices PF13, tells her to get down. PF13 replies that she cannot get down and remains sitting. S10 asks her how she got to the top, and starts to walk over to her. PF13 immediately jumps down from chair stack.

181

While PF13 could have been seeking attention, on other occasions there appeared to

be a more easily identifiable motive for climbing, such as impressing a parent. For

example, until her father arrived to collect her in the afternoon, PF02 had initiated only

seven UCBs on the day she was observed. In the space of little more than a minute

she added a further two (nearly three) UCBs to her total, as follows.

Vignette 5.13 Impressing father

PF02’s father enters the preschoolers’ playroom and PF02 instantly involves PF06 in animated R&T play on the easy chair. S10 walks over to the girls and parts them and talks to PF06. PF02 gets up and cuddles PM17 who falls back onto the chair and initiates animated R&T play again. Before S10 intervenes to stop the action PF02 gets off the chair, walks over to a stack of chairs approximately a metre high and climbs to the top. S04 comes over and lifts her down. PF02 runs over to her father who has been watching and waiting by the sign-out book.

Only seven instances were observed of climbing being used to reach another object,

and all but one were aimed at reaching a particular puppet on a shelf. Attempts to

reach the puppet appeared to be generated by its status as a desirable toy, an attribute

proposed as a source of UCBs by Brown (1996). Taken together, however, neither the

act of climbing nor the object being climbed upon assumed any great significance in the

majority of cases. Attracting the attention of staff or demonstrating climbing skills

appeared to be a major motivation, and the influence of the physical environment

played only an instrumental and supporting role.

5.7.10 Cosy corners and places to rest

The literature frequently mentions the need for cosy corners and places to rest (e.g.,

Bunnett & Davis, 1997; Clarke & Gray, 1997; Greenman, 1988; Harms et al., 1998;

Koralek et al., 1993; Olds, 1997; Shepherd & Eaton, 1997). Apart from the five children

for whom sleeptime was requested by their parents, the child care centre did not

enforce any other scheduled quiet periods. Individual children made use of two easy

chairs in the relative isolation of the book corner, but only one child (PM06) made any

formal use of the chairs to rest for any length of time. As a result of a request from her

mother, PF06 reposed in one of the chairs for a short period each afternoon. Ironically,

the blanket she brought from home to cover herself during the quiet periods was the

subject of several UCB episodes including one tug-o-war and one hostile conflict which

resulted in PF03, while trying to help PF06, suffering physical harm at the hands of a

blanket-stealing toddler. Although many children used the book corner and chairs for

solitary “reading”, few children were observed to use the easy chairs or available pillows

for rest outside the television or video-tape viewing periods.

182

5.7.10.1 UCBs and television

Video-film sessions were made available on most afternoons, either in the

preschoolers’ playroom during inside free time or in the late afternoon nursery setting,

as a restful alternative to other activities. The television in the preschoolers’ playroom

was normally set up near the easy chairs in the book area and additional cushions were

made available for children sitting on the floor. Focus-children rarely stayed to watch a

film from beginning to end. Overall, television appeared to be used for temporary

respite by a few children at various times, but no pattern of regular video-film use by

any focus-children was evident.

Children were not allowed to operate the television or video and all were required to sit

back from the screen, both as a safety matter and to prevent blocking the view of

others. Playing with the controls, sitting too close, and playing under and around the

TV cabinet gave rise to 18 UCBs. Various children brought films from home and

disputes with other children, who wanted to look at the packaging, created a further two

UCBs.

5.7.10.2 Soft places

Although there was no shortage of cushions to supplement the easy chairs, there

appeared to be little demand for “soft” places or quiet times to go with them, outside

viewing periods. Occasional competition for sole occupancy of an easy chair did take

place among five or six children, mainly girls. Rather than as an accessory to quiet

rest, the sometimes violent interactions appeared aimed at securing and maintaining

possession of the chair as a matter of status. The main antagonists were usually PF03,

PF05 and PF07. The following vignette relates a typical episode involving the first two

girls and two others.

Vignette 5.14 Possessing the easy chair

PF06 is sitting in the easy chair talking to PF04 who is sitting next to her. PF05 comes over and says something to PF06 (I cannot hear), PF06 appears to back away. PF05 pulls PF04 off the chair and climbs up next to PF06. PF04 tries to climb back on but is prevented by PF05 – PF04 complains. S05 hears shouting, comes across to the chair and tells the girls they should not be pushing, then moves away. PF03 comes over and climbs onto the chair. PF05 gets up, grips PF03 around the head and pulls her to the ground. PF03 is upset - tries to get back onto the chair. PF05 hits her on the back - turns and pulls PF06 off the chair. PF06 complains. S10 comes over to the chair to talk to the girls.

All four girls moved away from the chair, with PF03 and PF06 going to separate

activities and PF04 and PF05 spasmodically continuing the conflict in the home area.

183

None returned to dispute the chair or to rest in it.

Taking a wider view, almost half the preschoolers’ playroom floor was carpeted, which

provided an extensive soft area. As previously mentioned, the soft floor area was the

site for most of the indoor R&T play. It was also used for a variety of floor activities,

including circle time, dancing, looking at books, block building, floor puzzles, railway

track construction, and play with model cars on road mats. No children were observed

to use the floor for rest without being involved in one of the planned activities.

5.7.10.3 Conclusion about quiet and cosy areas

Although the literature frequently mentions the need for cosy and soft areas, as well as

quiet places, little evidence has been provided to indicate the behavioural consequences

of not providing them. The centre studied in the current investigation had few formal or

permanent cosy, soft, or quiet areas. However, both the indoor and outdoor extended free

play periods incorporated passive pursuits and opportunities for isolated play. In some

cases these included manipulative activities, which have been observed elsewhere to

be used by children as an escape from active peer involvement (Sylva et al., 1980). On

numerous occasions during the current study, even the most active children were

sometimes observed to engage in solitary undertakings such as painting, drawing,

puzzles and sandplay, as well as other relatively passive activities. In addition, apart

from looking at books, children were frequently seen working alone with big blocks in

the block area, or at a table with smaller construction materials (e.g., Vignette 5.3), or

just watching others.

It appeared that these activities provided the comfort and solitude that the children

needed at the time, and there was no evidence that UCBs were produced as a

consequence of insufficient soft and quiet areas. Despite the efforts to escape,

however, UCBs did occur in these situations, usually as a result of children misusing

materials or equipment, or peers deliberately interfering with the solitude of the focus-

child.

5.7.11 Private spaces

A number of writers have attached some importance to the provision of private places

for young children (e.g., Alexander et al., 1977; Bunnett & Davis, 1997; Clarke & Gray,

1997; McCrea & Piscitelli, 1991; Moore, 1996c; Trancik & Evans, 1995; Youcha & Wood,

1997), although at what age private places have meaning to children has been the

subject of some discussion (e.g., Langeveld, 1983; Zeegers et al., 1994). The

184

preschoolers’ playroom in the current study was not equipped with specific private

places for children, but two items of furniture were used frequently as hide-a-ways.

One item was a wooden trolley, approximately 120 cm long, 40 cm wide, and 100 cm

high. Used for storing collage materials, it was fitted with a bottom shelf approximately

30 cm from the floor. Wooden flaps folded down from the shelf almost to floor level.

On eight occasions, one of four children climbed under the bottom shelf and lay full-

length beneath the trolley, hidden by the flaps. The position did not appear to be used

as a place for solitude, however, as more often than not the hidden children used the

vantage point to throw collage materials across the floor. Staff intervened on three

other occasions because the child was using the trolley as a hide-away to escape

following staff directives (e.g., Vignette 5.26).

The other item of furniture sometimes commandeered as a hide-away was the wooden

“refrigerator” in the home area. Three children achieved privacy on five different

occasions by climbing into the bottom compartment and closing the door on

themselves. On four of those occasions, another child stood in front of the door to turn

the refrigerator into a virtual prison, and both participants treated the affair as a game.

As a matter of discouraging children from climbing into refrigerators, toy or real, staff

intervened immediately they noticed a hide-away or prisoner.

Both the collage trolley and the wooden refrigerator were used for reasons other than

simply achieving privacy or exerting some control over the social environment.

Combined with the evidence that only six different children used either pieces of

furniture in these types of episodes, there appears little to suggest that children in the

current study were looking for private places, a conclusion which is in accord with the

findings in relation to almost half the subjects in the study by Zeegers et al. (1994).

Therefore, the furniture appeared to have little association with occurrences of UCBs in

relation to private places.

On the other hand, although the possible impact on child behaviours of an absence of

private places could not be assessed, neither could it be dismissed. At the same time,

as was mentioned earlier in the discussion relating to cosy areas, structural

components of the centre in the current study provided opportunities for children to find

solitude, engage in solitary play, or be an onlooker in both the extensive indoor and

outdoor free play sessions. The amount of time children spent in solitary play was not

recorded, but the data shows that almost half of all UCBs were produced by children

185

acting alone (Table 4.14), which provides some indication of the children’s use of

solitude. Evidence from the observations, discussed later in this chapter (e.g., 5.9.6)

suggests that solitary play was deliberately chosen by children in the majority of cases

and did not result from peer rejection or immature social development. For children in

the current study, the opportunities for solitary play may have provided the basic

benefits that children in other studies have found in specific private places.

5.7.12 Outdoor area, toys and play equipment

Several large pieces of outdoor equipment, such as the log fort, a smaller plastic fort

with a slide, the tree seat, and balance beams, were all relatively frequent sites of

UCBs. Similar to the indoor block area and open space, however, these settings and

objects frequently appeared to have little direct connection with the behaviours that

occurred in proximity to them. When the site or objects did appear influential, their role

was invariably confounded by the concurrent and unrelated activity of peers or

structural matters. One example was the previously mentioned violent encounter

between PM21 and PM09 (Vignette 5.4), which involved solitude, the digging area and

spade, but appeared to have been facilitated more by the free play structure of the

session and the history of antagonism between the two boys, than either the setting or

the object used as a club. Another example was illustrated by the non-compliant

behaviours of PM22 during transition time (Vignette 5.25), when the nearby climb-

through ball, rather than the larger and more distant wooden fort, provided him with the

hide-away he wanted.

One exception to the general lack of connection between settings and UCBs may have

been the sandpit, which was the location of 46 UCBs, and was also identified as a

problem area by respondents to the Gruss et al. (1998) survey. The sandpit area in the

current study was completely enclosed with trellis fencing, sunscreens and a roof. Two

adjacent gates on one corner allowed easy, unrestricted access, but did not facilitate

children running through the area (Figure 3.5). More than half of all UCBs were directly

related to the location, objects, and materials, which included children not sharing the

enclosed space (4), not sharing the equipment (7), or misusing the sand (13).

Other items of equipment that may have genuinely influenced UCBs were the four

plastic “hula-hula” hoops. Although only involved in 16 UCBs with seven focus-children,

the hoops were frequently used as weapons. Commonly, the boys used them for hitting

each other in the style of sword fighting or, less aggressively, making believe they were

bows that fired arrows. Most dangerously, however, the hoops were used as a lasso

186

directed to the head/neck of a running child, often bringing the target to an abrupt and

painful halt. Despite rigid enforcement of the “no lasso” rule, the use of hoops for that

purpose continued to attract several boys throughout the observation period. Unlike

most other pieces of equipment, the hoops were rarely observed to be used for any of

their designated purposes, such as hula-hula or bowling. Therefore, in most cases the

use of the hoops was exclusively linked to child behaviours likely to be identified as

unwanted.

5.7.13 Other physical factors

Many of the other indoor and outdoor physical factors of possible influence on child

behaviours, mentioned in the review of literature, also appeared in connection with

UCBs in the current study. These included the occasional collision in walkways

between activities (e.g., Kritchevsky et al., 1977: Watkins & Durant, 1992; Department

of Health, Housing, and Community Services, 1992), misuse of equipment and

materials as a result of children’s innovations and fantasy play (e.g., Culpit, 1989;

Dawkins, 1991; Lewin, 1935; Warren, 1996; Wilder, 1996), and competition for

particularly prized “dressing-up” clothes or specialised pieces of construction materials,

such as Mobilo “hinges” (e.g., Brown, 1996). However, the range of equipment,

materials, and locations observed over the 54 days of investigation was so extensive

that most had fewer than two or three UCBs attached to each, and frequently only one.

Therefore, while a general connection between physical factors and UCBs can be

made, no specific design element or object could be identified as exerting a common

influence on all children at all times.

5.7.14 A response to the research question about physical factors

Part of the research question concerned how, and to what extent, physical factors

within the environment of a child care centre, contribute to the manifestation of

unwanted child behaviours. Observational data indicated that some factors in the

physical environment were instrumental in the manifestations of unwanted behaviours

in some children, and specific physical resources may have facilitated the production of

UCBs by others. In particular, the large carpeted area appeared to contribute to R&T

play for some children, while specific items of furniture and the comparative isolation of

the children’s toilet provided the setting for other children to display UCBs. However,

data from the current study provided no evidence that any one physical factor

influenced the production of particular types of UCBs in the majority of children. More

specifically, it is apparent that many of the UCBs associated with physical factors are

influenced just as much by concurrent social, cultural and structural factors,

187

emphasising the previously found inseparable relationship between components of the

environmental (e.g., Moore, 1986; Moos & Insel, 1974; Proshansky & Fabian, 1987).

This was particularly relevant for locations that were meant to encourage social

interactions among children, such as the home and block areas. As expected, these

areas engendered higher levels of conflict on account of the opportunities for social

control, negotiations for outcomes of play, and sharing of objects and space afforded to

participants (Hartup & Laursen, 1993; Kounin & Sherman, 1979; Moore, 1997b).

5.8 Social factors in the environment and UCBs

The social world of children attending the child care centre was, for most, seen to be

dominated by the peer group. Staff also played a social role but matters of authority

and control, as demonstrated in Vignettes 5.31 to 5.36 frequently confounded

relationships with children. The focus-children’s more egalitarian relationships were

with other preschoolers and toddlers and took a variety of forms to suit different

functions. Mention has already been made of the role of objects and social control in

children’s relationships, as well as some issues associated with joining friendship

circles. Questions about the efficacy of some children’s efforts to communicate intent

have also been discussed. In the present section these matters are used as a

backdrop to consideration of the role of peer associations in the focus-child’s social

milieu, particularly as they relate to the manifestations of UCBs.

5.8.1 Involvement of peers in UCBs

Table 4.14 shows that while 35 UCBs occurred as a result of accidental contacts, 720

UCBs resulted from purposeful peer associations in dyads (595), triads (91), and in

groups of more than three children (34). To the observer, certain combinations of peers

appeared to make a marginally greater contribution to the creation of UCBs than others.

At the same time, however, it was noted that 629 UCBs, representing more than 45% of

the total, were initiated by focus-children acting alone. Of these, almost half the number

were accredited to just three focus-children, PM09, PM19, and PM21, who were also

the three highest ranking initiators of UCBs overall.

More significant from a perspective of peer associations are the percentages of UCBs

perpetrated by each focus-child alone. For the majority of children the number of UCBs

involving no peers represented between 30%-60% of their personal totals. Although a

wide range, a few children exhibited percentage rates far beyond the extremes of both

ends. Of the 55 UCBs in her total, for example, PF07 initiated 40 or 73% alone.

188

Despite being the second highest female focus-child initiator of UCBs, she was a target

of only two initiated by two others. Together these numbers appear to indicate that,

although a highly active child in the production of UCBs, peers did not play a very

important direct role in her behaviours. On the other hand, PM18 initiated a similar

number of UCBs, but only six or 13% of the 45 accredited to him were enacted alone.

Similarly contrasting to PF07, he was a target of 20 UCBs initiated by six others.

Clearly, peers played a much more active role in his behaviours than in those of PF07.

The initiator, target, and peer association data (Appendix 7) indicate a range of peer

influences in the UCBs of the other focus-children that fall between the extremes of

PF07 and PM18. Overall, the extent and intensity of peer contacts has been suggested

as critical in determining social aspects of the environment (Campos-de-Carvalho &

Rossette-Ferreira, 1993; Ramsey, 1995). However, data from the current study

appears to indicate that the direct influence of peers in the production of UCBs is less

strong for some children than for others.

5.8.2 Initiating and being a target of UCBs

The involvement of a focus-child in UCBs on his or her day of observation did not

signify that he or she initiated the behaviours that attracted staff attention. PM25, for

instance, was involved in 71 UCBs on the day he was observed as a focus-child. Of

these, he initiated 50, or approximately 70%, was the target of 17 UCBs, and an

accessory to a further four events. He was not observed to initiate UCBs with any of his

29 fellow focus-children during the other 53 observation days, although he was a target

in a further 23. PM18 also initiated approximately 70% (20) of the 28 UCBs recorded

when he was observed as the focus-child on day 8. In contrast to PM25, however, he

had already initiated 21 of the 97 UCBs involving PM20 as the focus-child on

observation day 1, and a further 4 with PM19 as the target when the latter was the

focus-child on day 3. As mentioned above, he was also a target in 20 UCBs initiated by

six focus-children on four other days.

The number of times other focus-children were initiators and targets of UCBs listed in

Appendix 6. Over the entire observation period the number of different children

targeted by any one initiator ranged from none (PF09 & PM08) to 19 (PM19). At the

same time, individual focus-children were targets of up to 21 other children (PM09),

while PF09 was never observed as a target of UCBs.

As Tables 4.11 and 4.12 reveal, across the 54 observation days the amount of

189

involvement individual focus-children had in UCBs, as initiators, targets, or accessories,

varied widely. For example, PM08 and PF09 were each involved in fewer than 10

UCBs in total, while PM09, PM19 and PM21 were each involved in 200 or more. The

variable pattern of children’s involvement in UCBs across different days, with different

peers, was no less marked than the pattern of numbers of UCBs involving individual

focus-children on their own observation days.

5.8.2.1 Dominance, submission and role acceptance

Overall, the social status of individual children within the peer group did not appear

particularly stable or consistent over the course of the day (cf. La Freniere &

Charlesworth, 1987). A number of reasons may account for the lack of stability and

consistency, which relate to the structure of sub-groups and settings. Among the

population of preschoolers, several boys and three girls were frequently observed taking

leadership roles. However, similar to the findings of Smith and Connolly, (1980), the

children in the current study were also observed to form separate sub-groups and, as

Pierce and Cohen (1995) noted, the influence of a small group of friends may be greater

than the peer group as a whole. Consequently, there were few opportunities for

individuals to establish a dominant status over the whole group.

The opportunities were further restricted by the previously discussed variations in

children’s enrolment days. Few children attended every day of the week, which conspired

against attaining a position of dominance in all situations. A child could be relatively

dominant on one day, only to be challenged by others or accorded little status on another

day.

Dominance, when it was apparent, occurred most frequently in dyads and triads where

tasks were undertaken, or dramatic play enacted, as a joint venture. While a number of

children presented as consistently trying to dominate, those who were supposed to be

dominated were less constant in their role as a compliant associate. In only a single

dyad did the participants appear to be stable and accepting of their respective roles,

and they came together infrequently. When they did play, the relationship between the

two was typical of the following vignette.

Vignette 5.15 Dominant partners

PM19 walks over to the carpet near the block area where PM13 is playing with a car built from Mobilo. PM19 kicks PM13’s car hard against the wall, causing it to break apart – Mobilo pieces scatter around the area. PM19 shouts joyously. PM13 looks at PM19 but says nothing – starts searching for pieces. PM19 says

190

nothing but also starts looking for pieces, finds some and sits quietly rebuilding the car. PM13 gets up and goes to the Mobilo storage bin, picks out a piece and returns and gives it to PM19, sits and watches PM19 reconstruct the car. PM13 gets up again - goes to Mobilo bin again - picks out another piece - returns and gives it to PM19 – sits and passively watches PM19 reconstruct the car.

The car was eventually rebuilt and presented to PM13. PM19 built himself a car and

they played together, racing, smashing, and rebuilding vehicles for nearly 30 minutes.

After the car game the boys went to home area where PF14 was “cooking” playdough

cakes for three other children. PM13 and PM19 joined in as kitchen hands and were

soon being seriously reprimanded by PF14 for not putting the cakes in the oven on

time. In both the car and the cakes incident there appeared to be a clear understanding

and acceptance of roles and no opposition or UCBs arose from either situation.

Another form of behaviour that appeared as an attempt to exert dominance over others

related to children acting alone and attempting to dominate a situation regardless of

who the participants were, which is discussed further in 5.9.1.2. Overall, most UCBs in

this category were recorded either as a result of staff intervention to prevent hold-ups

during routine periods or because conflicts developed on account of the targets refusing

to accept domination.

5.8.2.2 Bullies and reactive aggression

Bullying, which was closely related to some episodes of attempted domination, was

observed on a number of occasions. Most frequently, the target of bullying was a child

already involved in play and the bully was someone outside the group. Overall,

however, few children displayed overt bullying tactics in their relationships with others

(cf. Zoccolillo, 1993). The most prominent exception was PM09, although he did not

always escape reactive aggression from peers. The following vignette represents a

sequence of events at the end of organised foot races between preschoolers, held in

the outdoor play area just before lunch.

Vignette 5.16 Bullying and reactive aggression

PM09 is running along with 8-9 other children but appears more interested in disrupting others than trying to win or even finish. PM09 kicks PM02 as the latter goes past him – S05 intervenes to prevent any follow-up or retaliation from PM02. S05 tells PM09 she wants him to stop hurting other children and that he should apologise to PM02. PM09 looks into the sky and says nothing. S05 asks PM09 what he should say to PM02 (after having kicked him). PM09 replies “thank you”. S05 talks quietly to PM09 and guides him back into the race. PM09 running - still not concerned with winning, grabs hat off head of PF01 as he passes her and tosses it away. PF01 turns to retrieve her hat, does not retaliate. PM02 catches up

191

with PM09 and pushes him hard as he passed. PM09 regains balance and pushes PM02 – PM02 pushes PM09 again – PM09 kicks PM02 – PM02 hits PM09 – PM09 runs off – PM02 chases and catches PM09 – both boys punching each other – PM09 appears to be getting the worst of it - screams – PM02 pushes PM09 down on the ground – S05 runs over to them – joined by S10.

Displaying a similarly attitude to the dominance tactics of PM09 as she portrayed in

Vignette 5.11, PF01 did not retaliate and did not attract staff intervention. PM02 took a

different view, possibly on account of PM09’s apparent escape from any retribution for

the original kick. While the nature of the staff response to PM09’s original kicking of

PM02 could be implicated, the later display of reactive aggression by PM02 was the

defining action in the manifestation of the UCB. In most cases of hostile confrontation,

reactive aggression in the face of attempted dominance or bullying appears to play a

major part in the occurrences of UCB. In many cases, however, it was observed that

the initial hostile act and initial reactive response often cancelled each other and the

confrontation went no further. As in the above vignette, it was the further response of

PM09 to the reactive aggression of PM02 that turned the encounter into a very

physically hostile action. However, sequences of such physically violent behaviour

were observed infrequently over the period of investigation.

5.8.3 Dyads, triads, and groups in UCBs

With a total of 595 UCBs, dyads were the more common numerical combination of

children involved in the production of UCBs. As Table 4.14 shows, hostile

confrontations outweighed friendly associations by a ratio of more than 2:1. There was

a considerably smaller number of UCBs involving triads and groups and, of the 125

total, friendly encounters (95) far outweighed those imbued with hostile intent (30) by a

ratio of more than 3:1. One interpretation of these figures suggests that groups of three

or more children may be far less prone to UCBs than children in pairs or alone.

However, no record was kept of the overall time individual children spent alone, in pairs

or in groups. As a consequence, no proportional representation by time, or frequency

rates, can be provided to substantiate any claims for comparative group behaviours.

5.8.4 Friendly and hostile peer associations in UCBs

Friendly dyads, triads, and groups accounted for 273 UCBs representing almost 20% of

the total. The targets in these cases were children invited, incited, or otherwise coerced

into a range of cooperative ventures that attracted staff intervention for more than 40

different categories of reasons. Among these were too much noise (10), R&T play (67),

running inside (24), shooting games (7) and other misuses of resources (37).

192

It was observed that a salient feature of friendly dyads was their lack of exclusivity in

relation to membership. Perhaps due to their collaborative nature, friendly dyads

attracted others who appeared relatively welcome to join in the fun. What started out as

dyadic venture frequently became triadic and even a group enterprise as other children

contributed to the action. The process of expanding membership of the friendly group

exhibited some of the characteristics that Sherman (1975) identified as “glee”, although

the groups involved in R&T play did not depend on male and female membership or

suggest the need for mixed-sex composition. On occasions, there was resistance to

the additional participation of some children of the opposite sex, for example TF04 in

Vignette 5.8. In this instance, however, the attempted exclusion of TF04 could have

been on the basis of her age and status as a toddler or as PM20’s younger sister. In

most cases, however, there appeared to be an open invitation for others to join in, as

illustrated by the following typical series of events initiated almost unwittingly by PM05.

Vignette 5.17 Run like a plane

PM05 gets up from his seat in the far corner of book area and runs with his arms out like a plane to the nursery door. PM20 chases PM05 and pulls him to the ground. S10 comes over and intervenes to stop R&T play developing. S10 moves away. PM05 get up and PM20 immediately chases and catches PM05 near home area. They both wrestle, fall over and R&T play starts on the floor. PM06 joins in briefly then steps back. PM25 comes over and joins in, closely followed by PM11. All involved in R&T play behind cupboards in home area. PM07 comes over and joins in.

A notable characteristic of friendly UCBs was that, compared to hostile encounters, they

appeared relatively impervious to the standard form of staff intervention. On numerous

occasions it was observed that staff interventions curtailing friendly play had little lasting

effect unless accompanied by firm redirection to, and supervision of participants in other

activities. Whereas the act of staff intervention in hostile conflicts often provided a

break in the cycle of confrontation, easing tension and giving opposing parties a chance

to calm, it had no such impact on those taking part in joyous or gleeful encounters.

Children involved in R&T play and friendly chasing games, in particular, frequently

reformed after intervention and often ignored directives to stop.

Overall, 17 of the 30 focus-children were involved in 95 triadic and group UCBs with

friendly associations, with two children (PM19 & PM20) mentioned in more than half of

them. Hence there were both a greater number of friendly triads and groups, and a

lower ratio of dyads to triads and groups, compared to UCBs listed as hostile.

193

In further contrast to friendly encounters, it was observed that hostile dyads tended to

remain isolated, even within larger groups. A conflict between two children rarely

attracted the attention of other children and on only one occasion did a child outside the

initial conflictual dyad involve himself in the physical hostilities. In that instance PF05,

PF07 and PF14 had been separately watching an animated film on video-film. PM13

and PM18, who were sitting together, were also watching.

Vignette 5.18 Third party peer intervention

PF05 and PF07 get up from the floor - face each other - and both start to wrestle with apparent hostile intent, (I cannot see or hear the cause). PM18 suddenly stands up, steps across to the two girls and pushes PF05 over. S10 comes over to investigate the disturbance.

In the majority of cases the hostile triads and groups involved a single child initiating the

confrontation and being resisted by two or more others at the same time. On three

occasions, two children conspired against a third and, once, three children conspired

against one, but these events were comparatively rare. No UCBs involved opposing

dyads, triads, or groups.

Although not a common occurrence overall, some children were also observed

manipulating situations to get others into trouble with staff. These episodes were quite

different to the reporting of peers mentioned earlier (Vignette 5.5) as they appeared to

be premeditated, as demonstrated in the following vignettes.

Vignette 5.19 Retribution by entrapment

TF11 is playing in the outdoor home corner when PM19 comes over and pulls on the back of her dress to move her out of the way. TF11 resists being moved and PM19 hits her in the back. The bullying of the toddler is seen by S05 who comes over to comfort TF11. She calls PM19 to her, admonishes him, and shows him the mark on TF11’s back (where PM19 hit her). S05 settles TF11 back into the home area and moves away. PM19 returns and initiates play with TF11, persuades her and another toddler to climb into the enclosure (out-of-bounds) as part of the game. TF11 and the other toddler climb into the enclosure - PM19 reports the misbehaviour of both toddlers to S06.

It appeared that PM19 was seeking retribution for having been admonished by S05, but

in other instances the entrapment initiated the peer encounter.

Vignette 5.20 Initiating by entrapment

PM05 is sitting quietly on his own in an easy chair with a gun built from Mobilo pieces. PM09 passes by and, without stopping, tosses a small plastic container at PM05. PM05 responds by “shooting” him. PM09 stops and shouts “no guns, no

194

guns” (centre rule) and looks around to see if any staff have heard him – none have. PM09 turns back and, with a smile, asks PM05 to shoot him again. PM05 obliges and PM09 reports PM05’s misbehaviour to S05.

Children frequently incited others to undertake illicit activities, but most were in the form

of joint ventures with the promoter. Only PM09 and PM19 were observed to plan the

entrapment of others and it was not clear to what extent the strategy was practiced.

The resultant UCBs were, however, clearly the product of opportunism and were

influenced by within-child characteristics more than immediate environmental factors.

5.8.5 Intra-day shifts in peer relationships

Matters associated with popularity and physical unattractiveness as issues in

friendships were not addressed in the current study, but the data collection strategy did

allow dyadic and triadic relationships to be charted across various settings throughout

the day. One of the more salient features to emerge was evidence of shifting

allegiances in different settings, even between apparently established friendships.

Ramsay (1995) had observed changes in preschoolers’ preferences for peers over

periods of several months, while Ladd et al. (1990) noted that children’s behaviour

differed across social situations, affecting friendships. However, the data from the

current study demonstrated a number of shifts in friendship patterns between morning

and afternoon, and between indoor and outdoor play. Most frequently these occurred

between dyads, but they also involved two members of a triad rejecting the third, with

changes in both combinations having consequences for the creation of UCBs.

For example, PM05 and PM06 were a reasonably established dyad over the entire

observation period and they had been playing together on the morning of day 51.

PM19 associated with most children but spent a lot of time playing with the equally

active PM21. After lunch, PM19 suddenly switched his allegiance to PM06, who

reciprocated, and they spent most of the afternoon indoor and outdoor periods involved

in cooperative activity. PM21 had also been involved in some games but events turned

to confrontation towards late afternoon, as recounted in the following vignette.

Vignette 5.21 Shifts in peer relationships

PM21, PM22, PM19 and PM06 are on the verandah being “knocked over” by PF06 in a swing pushed by PF03. PM19 falls on top of PM06 and PM06 claims to have been hurt. He calls on PM19 to come away and play elsewhere. PM21 comes over to PM06 and punches him in the back - accuses PM06 of trying to stop him playing with PM19.

195

S10 intervened to prevent any escalation of the hostility, but a few minutes later PM19

pushed PM21 over with considerable force in what may have been a retaliatory action

on behalf of the usually nonviolent PM06.

5.8.6 Intra-relationship shifts in peer relationships

More rapid and apparently unprovoked shifts from friendly to hostile relations, and back

again, were observed a number of times between established and cooperative dyads.

While friendships in this age group involve a range of interactions as part of normal

social development (e.g., La Freniere & Charlesworth, 1987), the intent of some

exchanges appeared to be considerably more complex than others. Vignettes 5.22 &

5.23 sequentially account for two events involving PM20 and PM07 with PM05 and

PM06 in the preschoolers’ playroom a little more than an hour after the episode

between PM20 and PM07 recorded in Vignette 5.8. PM20 has been playing matching

cards with PM05 when PM07 came over.

Vignette 5.22 Accepting peers

PM07 arrives at the card table, leans over and says something to PM20. PM20 stands up and “swings” a mock punch at PM07, PM07 runs off and PM20 chases him to the book area and starts R&T play in an easy chair. They are joined by PM06 and all three fall on the floor.

The R&T play appeared to be an extension of the boys’ previous activities in the early

morning nursery setting. On this occasion the R&T play attracted PM06 and, a few

moments later, PM05 also joined in. At that point S10 intervened and redirected the

boys into other activities. PM20 went to the home area, and approximately nine

minutes later initiated a change in his relationships with PM05 and PM07, as shown by

Vignette 5.23.

Vignette 5.23 Rejecting peers

PM20 is role playing in home and calls out that tea is ready. PM06 comes to the table and sits down. PM07 also comes over to the table. PM20 immediately launches a hostile attack on PM07 and pushes him out of the way. PM05 arrives at the table and PM20, with apparent hostile intent, throws a (plastic) saucer at him, hitting him on the head. PM05 stands at the edge of home area, with PM07, rubbing his head and complaining to PM20.

Both PM05 and PM07 were accepted back into the game a few minutes later but the

relationships remained dynamic throughout the day, leading to a number of staff

interventions. Similar shifts were noticed for other dyadic and triadic relationships over

the observation period (e.g., Vignette 5.14), with a number of apparently hostile

196

conflicts resulting in UCBs.

Researchers have investigated many issues associated with conflicts within young

children’s friendships (e.g., Laursen & Hartup, 1989; Maynard, 1985; Sims, 1997;

Stephen, 1993), as well as matters concerned with preferences, victimisation, and

dominance (Hatch, 1987; Pettit et al., 1990). However, questions about intra-day shifts

in the relationships of dyads and triads, from friendship to violent rejection, have not

been specifically addressed.

5.8.7 A response to the research question about social factors

Although it is generally accepted in the literature that peers play a major role in child

socialisation, only a little over half of all UCBs recorded in the current study involved

more than one child. When peers were implicated in UCBs, the roles of focus-children

varied considerably as initiators, targets, or accessories, often dependent on focus-child

characteristic and peers or combinations of peers. Discerning patterns of peer

influence on UCBs was further complicated by shifting allegiances between dyads and

quite rapid intra-day changes from friendship to apparent enmity and back again.

Attempts at social control, including dominance and bullying, were implicated in a

considerable number of UCBs although infrequently as the immediate cause of staff

intervention. More often, it was the reactions of target children who attracted staff

attention. Observations showed that on a number of occasions, however, UCBs were

avoided because the target declined to retaliate, underlining the importance of

children’s responses to the production of UCBs.

Clearly, overall, social factors made an extensive contribution to the manifestation of

UCB in some cases. The influence is, however, highly variable between different

children, and between different situations involving the same child and peers. At the

same time, the inconsistency of peer relations in this age group makes it difficult to

predict any general influence of social factors on UCBs in any place at any time.

5.9 Structural factors in the environment and UCBs

Discussion throughout the current chapter has already implicated some structural

factors in the production of UCBs. Interpretation of the data is in agreement with a

number of investigators who have cited program structure as a major influence on

children’s behaviour (e.g., Berk, 1971; Del’Homme et al., 1994; Smith & Connolly,

1980). As a consequence, occurrences of UCBs and associated behaviour streams

197

were further examined for evidence of relationships with specific aspects of the

structure, including free play and teacher-directed sessions, routines, and transition

periods. Attention was also given to the impact on behaviour of passive sessions

following highly active periods, and a variety of characteristics associated with grouping.

5.9.1 Characteristics of free play and staff-directed sessions

It may be appropriate at this point to reiterate that free play described settings in which

children were left to make relatively free choices between activities that were planned

and provided by staff. Decisions about program content were not seen by the observer

to incorporate any direct contribution by children. However, throughout the observation

period children made numerous suggestions and requests for specific materials and

equipment, and staff frequently acquiesced. On a number of occasions, staff also

extended activities in time and space to accommodate children’s spontaneous interests,

albeit at the cost of reducing or omitting following sessions. Although staff determined

the settings, children were permitted to create their own situations within the boundaries

of safety and culturally defined socially acceptable behaviour.

In contrast to the longer free play periods, staff-directed sessions were of shorter

duration, less flexible in location or timing, and clearly delineated as limited behaviour

settings that incorporated staff expectations for specific responsive child behaviours.

5.9.1.1 The characteristics of UCBs in free play sessions

In free choice sessions, children making inappropriate choices about play, or exercising

a level of imagination about objects that posed a threat to other children, invariably

prompted staff intervention on the basis of equipment or materials misuse. This group

accounted for 99 UCBs within the categories of “misuse” and “out-of-area” listed in

Table 4.17. Several instances were observed where children involved themselves in

“unauthorised” activities by helping themselves to equipment and materials from stores

and cupboards that were not intended by staff for children’s use that day. In the

outdoor area the unauthorised materials also included water, which several boys saw

as indispensable to the digging area. Water play was not a planned activity on any of

the observation days and attempts were made on a number of occasions to procure

supplies from the garden tap or the children’s toilet.

Similarly, there were a number of occasions, particularly in the outdoor area, when

equipment was rearranged by children or moved “out-of-area”. Usually these UCBs

involved the raising or lowering of planks on climbing frames, or the accumulation of

198

blocks and mattresses onto the tree seat or into the wooden fort. The latter was

frequently related to imaginative play requiring “stores” and other provisions, and

enacted by the same group of boys. Nearly all of these activities resulted in staff

interventions on the basis of maintaining staff control of the overall program and to

restore materials to shelves or equipment to its original position.

Staff interventions were also prompted by a child not exercising sufficient control over

his or her choice of behaviours within the parameters of acceptable play, which often

resulted in physically hostile encounters (247 UCBs). Occurrences of UCBs comprising

overt and object aggression, and a range of other conflictual behaviours involving

peers, were frequently observed to be related to the extent of the freedom of choice of

activities given to the children. For example, within dyads, triads and larger groups,

complex play was often seen to develop, particularly in the outdoor settings, requiring

organisation and a high degree of cooperation among the participants. Disputes over

the direction of the play and the use of props to support the action were frequent, as

found by Boisen (1992). Where staff were not on hand to guide or provide the

scaffolding to help children solve some of the issues, then disagreements often

escalated and sometimes turned to physical hostility.

In these situations, few UCBs occurred as a result of children failing to share objects or

a shortage of resources (cf. Koralek et al., 1993; Stephen, 1993; Watkins & Durant,

1992). The disputes were more frequently about the function of objects in the play, or

how to move them to specific locations, and their characteristics appeared to play no

more than an instrumental role in issues of leadership and dominance among members

of the group. Some matters associated with dominance have already been discussed

in 5.8.2.1, and are further considered below.

5.9.1.2 The characteristics of UCBs in staff-directed sessions

In contrast, the close direction of staff meant that UCBs occurring in group sessions and

routines were more likely to reflect rule infringements relating to group conformity and

control. These infringements were frequently associated with not sitting properly (37),

or moving from an allotted position (22) and being out of seat (21), particularly at meal

times.

A number of UCBs were produced deliberately by some focus-children and appeared to

demonstrate the child’s understanding of temporal limitations in a particular space

imposed by schedules. The main issue was not seen as one of children resisting or

199

objecting to being ordered by time, as contended by some authors (e.g., Davidson,

1980; Greenman, 1988), but one of children using time as a means of asserting

dominance over peers or challenging staff, as noted by Rodd (1996). For example, the

data provided evidence of four children independently using delaying tactics on

separate occasions to hold up others queuing in the children’s toilet during pre-meal

routines. One was PM25 who, having put his hat away after transition from outside free

play, in accord with requirements of the routine, had gone to the children’s toilet to wash

his hands prior to lunch, as a continuing part of the normal routine. PM01 and PM20

were already waiting for a vacant wash basin when PM25 pushed his way to the front,

ahead of the queue, only to be pulled back into line by S01 who was supervising the

routine. PM25 had to wait less than half a minute for his turn then washed his hands,

after which he exhibited the following behaviours.

Vignette 5.24 UCBs and the structure of toilet routine

PM25 finishes washing his hands and goes towards the towel, where PM01 is standing in line behind PM20, and wipes his wet hands across the face of PM01. PM01 backs away (taken by surprise) and does not retaliate. PM25 moves back towards the towel and wipes his hands across the face of PM20. PM20 backs away (also taken by surprise) and PM25 stands in front of the queue, deliberately wiping his hands slowly on the towel. S01 (who has been helping another child dress after toileting and missed the action), returns to the sink area and tells PM25 to dry his hands properly. PM25 continues drying his hands at a normal speed, then laughs and leaves the bathroom, punching PM05 on his way out.

There was no history of conflict between PM25 and PM01 or PM05 during the morning

and only a minor incident with PM20, who had come off worse after being hit by a

plastic tube swung by PM25 in the sandpit. There had been no confrontations in the

children’s toilet during the morning tea routine (and no repeat during the afternoon tea

toileting routine). PM20 sat at the same lunch table as PM25 and along with PM24 was

involved in quiet games during an otherwise uneventful mealtime.

Observations suggested that most structure-related UCBs of this type yielded no gain

for the focus-child except knowing that other children and staff sometimes had to wait

for him or her. Therefore, the behaviours probably belong to the category of UCBs

associated with dominance (Hatch, 1987) and initiator behaviours (Tisak et al., 1996).

This form of “blocking” behaviour was also observed on the steps from the first to

second level of the wooden fort in the outdoor play area. During these incidences, the

narrow physical structure of the steps was unquestioningly used as a prop for bullying

and dominance behaviour, demonstrated mainly by three boys (PM09, PM19 & PM21)

but not by PM25.

200

The data also evidenced examples of children ignoring or hiding from the call to

assemble for the time-sensitive transition from outdoor play to indoor pre-lunch

routines6. A four minute long example was provided by PM22, as soon as the triangle

sounded as a signal for all children to assemble on the verandah near the preschool

room door, which is recounted in the following vignette.

Vignette 5.25 UCBs and the structure of transition time

Triangle sounds – PM22 runs away from the verandah to the climb-through ball, climbs inside and lays down. S05 calls PM22 by name to come indoors – PM22 does not respond. S05 calls again from the verandah – PM22 still does not respond. S05 takes other children indoors to allow S10 to start group time prior to lunch - all go in without PM22. S13 walks over to the ball calling to PM22, who still does not respond. S13 gets to the ball tells PM22 that the door will be shut for lunch and he will be locked outside if he does not come in. PM22 does not respond. S13 reaches inside, but cannot get a hold on PM22. S05 again calls to PM22 from the verandah and tells him that she has something special for him. PM22 does not respond. S13 warns him again that the door will be shut and then walks away towards the preschoolers’ playroom. PM22 climbs out of the ball and runs to join the group.

None of the other children appeared to be interested in what PM22 had been doing and

he did not extend his silent and non-hostile four-minute delay in compliance into the

normal group routine. Several other instances of similar actions by other children were

observed in different situations on different days, but all during the lunch routine period.

Similar to PM22’s display above, the actions of focus-children in defiance of the

structure did not impact on other children, as illustrated by Vignettes 5.31 & 5.33.

Therefore, the UCBs could not be categorised as attempted domination of other

children. In all cases the actions appeared to be aimed more at the authority of the

staff, as exercised by the imposed structure of the program on the children, than any

personal characteristic of staff or a specific directive issued by staff to the child. It

appears likely, therefore, that the UCBs represented the resistance of children who

were trying to counteract feelings of helplessness in a situation where adults were

exerting power, as described by Miller (1996).

Despite these particular types of behaviours, group sessions, toileting routines and

6 After morning tea, the cook prepared lunches for the nursery children, toddlers and preschoolers, to be served separately and in sequence. Apart from children’s groups needing to be seated on time in order to receive the nutritional benefits of freshly prepared meals, successful preparation of afternoon tea, within the cook’s limited working hours, was dependent on lunch-time dishes and the kitchen being cleaned within a short time-span. Therefore, the outside-inside transition, and accompanying toilet routine, needed to be accomplished with minimal delays.

201

mealtimes overall yielded fewer UCBs per hour than did free play. Comparatively,

therefore, the data in the current study provided only limited support for the claims of

Farmer (1988) and Holloway (1991) that problem behaviours often occur during group

rituals. Clearly, however, some children recognised the vulnerability of structure to

certain forms of dominance or protest behaviours and were able to exercise those

behaviours to good affect.

5.9.2 UCBs and transitions

The pattern of UCBs during transition periods was given special attention because of

the temporal and spatial conditions imposed on children in moving from indoor activities

to outdoor play and back again. Overall, the four regular transition periods contributed

only 61 UCBs during a total of more than 15 hours observation. The aggregate

frequency rate of one every 15 minutes was less than that for indoor free play.

The lower rates are particularly noteworthy in light of the centre’s practice of keeping all

children together for transitions between indoor and outdoor activities rather than

moving small groups of children at a time as suggested by some practitioners and

researchers (e.g., Gruss et al., 1998; Harms et al., 1998). Scheduled directly after

morning and afternoon snacks, children who had finished eating and drinking were

required to go to the toilet, if they needed to, then wait at the back door for those

children who took longer to eat, drink and toilet. Staff also used the time to clear away

foodstuffs, clean tables, apply sun block to the children’s faces, and ensure all were

appropriately dressed, with particular attention to shoes and hats.

On a number of occasions, focus-children sat on the floor by the door, in the company

of other preschoolers, for 10 minutes or more without any specific activities to occupy

them while waiting for the remaining children. For a greater part of the time the children

appeared to experience little difficulty talking and playing among themselves while

sitting relatively quietly. The evident self-control exercised by the majority of children,

demonstrated on most observation days, served to accentuate the relatively few UCBs

that did occur. Overall, the data in the current study failed to support contentions by

Clarke and Grey (1997), Courtney and Kowalski (1995), and Davidson (1980) that

transition periods may be particularly vulnerable to the manifestation of UCBs.

Transitions from outdoor play to indoor activities also involved all children being

gathered together at one time, although achieved with less waiting time. One boy

(PM22 – previously mentioned in Vignette 5.25) used the period to go into hiding on two

202

of the days he was the focus-child, creating nine UCBs involving three staff. As a

consequence, he was solely responsible for two-thirds of all the UCBs that occurred

during the morning transition from outdoor to indoor activities (settings #8), and greatly

skewed the raw figures for all focus-children as a result.

5.9.2.1 Unscheduled transition periods

Other, less formal, transition periods were instigated by staff at various times during the

day, often involving packing materials and equipment away, as a prelude to group

gatherings. These “pack-away” periods were usually pre-empted by verbal warnings

and calls for children to help in the clean-up tasks, similar to strategies suggested by

Clarke and Gray (1997) and Zeece and Crase (1982). Children’s refusals to help pack

objects away on shelves, particularly in the block and home areas, directly accounted

for more than 40 UCBs and follow-up acts of defiance. A number of children were

observed to openly avoid clearing anything away, sometimes hiding behind furniture

rather than participate in the task with the majority of the group. More often than not,

however, non-cooperating children would stand to one side, or sit down, and just watch

the others. Any effort to get them involved was frequently met with stubborn resistance,

inevitably leading to confrontations, such as the following eight-minute excerpt from a

transcript after S05 had announced time to pack-away.

Vignette 5.26 Avoiding helping to pack-away

2.02pm PF07 stands by mirror in home corner - watching others who are packing various items away in different parts of the room

2.04pm PF07 plays with the mirror, tucking herself behind it - trying to fit loops as earrings

2.05pm S05 comes across and asks PM07 to help pack away, then moves on - PF07 does not move – remains by mirror

2.06pm PF07 still not helping - S05 comes across again and talks to her briefly then moves away

2.06pm PF06 joins PF07 - now pushing mirror on top of PF07 - both laughing 2.07pm PF06 leaves PF07 and mirror 2.07pm PF07 goes to the Mobilo area - lays on the floor behind home area furniture 2.08pm PF07 still on floor - invites PF03 to come and jump on her - PF03 joins

PF07 for friendly wrestle on the floor - PF03 spits on PF07 - PF07 gets up –initiates hand-to-hand wrestle with PF03 - PF03 moves away

2.09pm PF07 skips towards the book corner - stops - backs into home area - then walks over to the collage trolley on the edge of the blue carpet

2.10pm PF07 crouches down behind collage trolley – hides from S05 2.10pm S05 sees PF07 hiding - goes across to the trolley and takes her by the arms

to pull her up. PM07 goes dead weight - refuses to move - refuses to help clear away

The problem for PF07 did not appear to be with the format of the transition but in the

203

task of clearing away. Although most children participated in the pack-away to some

extent, a number of others, including PF06, PM25, and occasionally PM09 and PM21,

also avoided pack-away tasks at some time. With the exception of PM09, the others

employed strategies similar to PF07 and did not make a public show of their actions.

Instead, they quietly avoided getting involved and tried not to be noticed, perhaps

indicating an aversion to the task more than providing a demonstration of resistance to

authority, as hypothesised by Miller (1996).

5.9.3 The impact on UCBs of enforced passivity after active play

On a number of occasions, indoor group time was held directly after outdoor play,

requiring children to move from an active to a passive session. According to Holloway

(1991), Krantz and Risley (1977), and Watkins and Durant (1992), the sudden

requirement for changed physical behaviours in two different settings could lead to

UCBs. In the current study, the impact may have been mitigated by the formalised

transition period from outdoor to indoor settings, which provided a small cushion of time

between the two contrasting activities. In addition, the outside play periods usually

extended over 90 minutes or more and were characterised by options for children to

participate in passive pastimes as well as active games. Either as a result of the length

of play period, or the judicious use of transition time, as a short rest period between

settings of different activity levels, no UCBs could be linked to problems directly

associated with children unable to calm down after an active session.

5.9.4 Mixed-age grouping of children

Overlaying the 22 major settings were a number of periods when the toddlers and, on

occasions, older babies were combined with the preschoolers’ group. Many of the

arrangements were designed to maintain legally required staff:child ratios for

supervision, within the constraints of staff shift work schedules and meal breaks, as

much as being based on an educational philosophy supporting the socialisation of

children of different ages.

At the beginning of the day, all three age groups were combined in the nursery. On

transfer to the preschoolers’ playroom the toddlers normally remained in a combined

group until the last staff morning shift commenced at 9.30am. The toddlers then went

to their own room but combined with the preschoolers again in the outdoor play area

after morning tea. Toddlers went indoors for lunch 30 minutes earlier than the

preschoolers, who stayed in the outdoor area alone until nearer their lunchtime at 12

noon. Non-sleeping toddlers rejoined the preschoolers after lunch and stayed until

204

approximately 2.30pm. The preschoolers once more combined with toddlers in the

outdoor area following afternoon tea. At 4.30pm the remaining toddlers and

preschoolers went to the nursery and joined the babies until the close of the centre.

As the chart in Appendix 6 shows, toddlers featured prominently in 127 UCBs, initiating

45 including 32 in hostile encounters with 14 focus-children as targets. They were also

targets in another 80 UCBs initiated by 18 different preschoolers. At the same time,

babies were involved in a further 28 UCBs, 26 as targets of 11 preschoolers. A

common feature of many UCBs involving babies and toddlers was the failure of the

younger children to match the social skills of the older children, particularly in sharing

and cooperative games. Instances of toddlers and babies pushing ahead of children

waiting to use the paint easel or playdough, or forcing their way into block or home

corner, often resulted in violent reactions from preschoolers. Many hostile UCBs

appeared to arise from preschoolers’ intolerance of the toddlers’ involvement in

activities and activity areas regardless of whether the younger children forced their way

in. These findings are in accord with Goldman (1981) and Lougee et al. (1977), in that

many preschool age children are not able to cope with the affective and cognitive

demands of mixed-age groups, particularly in free play situations. The point is

exemplified by the following episodes.

Vignette 5.27 Sharing dough with toddlers

PM05, PM16, PM18 and PM19 are at the playdough table when a female toddler comes across, stands at one corner, and asks for some dough. The boys refuse to give up any of their supply, The toddler calls out to nearby staff. PM18 takes a piece of dough from PM16 and gives it to the toddler – PM16 gives her another bit himself.

Vignette 5.28 Sharing area with babies

PF14 in the home area is setting up a picnic table with plates and cups. She is joined at the table by two toddlers and two babies, all are talking. One of the babies is apparently getting too close to the area occupied by PF14 and the older child pushes her away. The baby tries to get into PF14’s area again and is pushed away again. The baby remains close, standing on a blanket. PF14 bends down and pulls the blanket away. The baby falls, rolls over, gets up, and leaves the area rubbing her head.

At the same time, staff vigilance for accidents or potential problems prompted

interventions on a number of occasions just to prevent preschoolers getting too close to

babies, particularly in the morning nursery free play sessions.

205

Vignette 5.29 Protecting babies

PM20, PM07, PM05, TF03, TF04, are all gathered around some large foam rubber shapes, looking at a baby on the floor. PM20 and PM05 are leaning across the baby – almost touching her. S03 moves PM05 back, PM20 moves back of his own accord, but both stay close to the baby. PM20 gets up and stands on one of the blocks. S03 asks him to get off and explains that he may fall onto the baby – S04 comes across from the other side and guides PM20 off the block.

Apart from general interest, some of the babies and toddlers attracted exuberant

“mothering”, mainly by PF08 and PM19, giving rise to six UCBs. Unlike the protective

measures characterising incidents such as that related above, the mothering usually

took the form of persistent cuddling or attempts to carry the younger children. The

following vignette provides an example of typical interactions between PF08 and babies

in the outdoor play area.

Vignette 5.30 Mothering babies

One of the female babies is clambering on a large foam rubber block. PF08 sees her, comes to the block and tries to lift the baby [I cannot assess whether she is trying to lift her onto or off the block]. The baby objects to being lifted and struggles. PF08 lets her down then takes her by hand and guides her towards the sandpit. The baby breaks free and runs around the back of the sandpit. PF08 chases, catches the baby and picks her up again. The baby objects and tries to break free. S18 intervenes, separates PF08 from the baby and takes the baby by the hand. PF08 takes the baby’s other hand and all three head towards the sandpit. PF08 bends down and cuddles the baby again – baby objects – S18 again intervenes to stop PF08.

Babies and toddlers were involved in a total of 155 UCBs, or more than 11% of the

total, spread across all mixed-age settings with no particular activity or location being

more prone to their involvement. Their presence also had an indirect influence on

preschoolers’ behaviour to the extent that staff were often preoccupied with demands of

younger children and failed to notice UCBs developing among older children. On

several occasions, preschoolers were observed to take advantage of events distracting

staff to involve themselves in activities that would otherwise be prevented. These

included various physically hostile acts, accessing objects without authorisation, and

being in places regarded as out-of-bounds.

5.9.5 Group size

For various staff-directed activities the preschoolers, whose ages ranged from 3 to 5

years, were divided into at least two developmentally more compatible sub-groups. For

the greater part of the day, however, they remained together and, as previously

mentioned, were integrated with the toddlers for extensive periods. As a result, the size

206

and composition of the whole group was continually changing, although never seen to

exceed a combined total of 30 children, and rarely reached 25. In the free play periods,

which occupied two-thirds of the observed program, staff moved around the playroom

and outdoor area working with individual children and small groups. Consequently,

there was little opportunity to assess the effect of large groups on the behaviour of

participants, as described by Dunn (1993) and Smith and Connolly (1980).

5.9.6 Program duration, timing, and time-of-day

The few extant investigations of program duration have looked at activities only in 15

and 30 minute periods (Boisen, 1992; Christie et al., 1988). The duration of play in the

major indoor and outdoor settings in the current study frequently exceeded 90 minutes

and, therefore, cannot be compared to the literature for effect of duration. During the

course of the observations, however, there were no discernible patterns of UCBs at any

particular time or period within the longer sessions. Consequently, the data did not

support Boisen’s (1992) finding that longer play periods yielded increased conflicts.

At the same time, it has to be acknowledged that data in the current study may be

confounded by the variable arrival and departure times of children, which considerably

shorten the length of play periods for some children as already discussed. In addition,

the child care centre was well equipped with a large outdoor area which provided

children with choices of activities and space of their own. As also previously

mentioned, it was noted that individual children frequently took breaks from highly

active or intensely social pursuits, often retreating to a garden area or taking up solitary

play in the sandpit. Therefore, some of the confounding issues of boredom (e.g., Clarke

& Gray, 1997; Davidson, 1980; Schuster et al., 1980), crowding (e.g., Greenman, 1988;

Kritchevsky et al., 1969; Larson et al., 1990; Smith & Connolly, 1980), and inappropriate

programming (Burts et al., 1990; Charlesworth et al., 1993), discussed in Chapter Two,

could not easily be separated from other physical, social, structural and cultural factors

in the observed settings.

5.9.7 A response to the research question about structural factors

Part of the research question concerned how, and to what extent, structural factors

within the environment of a child care centre, contribute to the manifestation of

unwanted child behaviours. Interpretation of the data in the current study indicated that

a variety of structural factors were implicated in the manifestation of a large number of

UCBs. These included time-sensitive routines, pack-away periods, and mixed-age

groups. However, none appeared to be a defining feature of the occurrence of UCBs in

207

all children, and other factors suggested as influential in the literature, including waiting

time, length of play sessions, and the contrast between high and low activity sessions,

appeared to have little overall impact on the children.

The data indicated that specific behaviours of some children re-occurred in some

structures more often than in others, but these were found to be influenced by

concurrent activities, peer associates, and within-child characteristics, similar to findings

by Schleifer et al. (1975) and Del’Homme et al. (1994). Therefore, while structure

appeared to make some contribution to the manifestation of UCBs in some children,

and provided a background to many others, interpretations of the data did not suggest

that it exerted a particularly dominant influence on all children.

It was apparent, however, that the types of UCBs exhibited during staff-directed

sessions were quite different to those occurring in free play. Specifically, directed

sessions provided fewer opportunities for children to engage in overt aggression or R&T

play, which is in keeping with findings by Berk (1971) and Smith and Connolly (1982).

UCBs occurring in the staff-directed sessions were frequently related to staff concerns

for group management and often involved staff:child confrontations. In free play

sessions, UCBs were more frequently related to staff reactions to child:child conflicts

and aggression emanating from social interactions.

5.10 Cultural factors in the environment and UCBs

As a condition of licensing, staff of centre-based child care are required to adhere to a

code of conduct that reflects the shared values of society in relation to the full-day care

of children (New South Wales Government, 1996). Apart from nutrition and other

health and safety issues, and programming, clause (9) of the code of conduct concerns

“Interactions with children”. In particular, it provides broad guidelines to staff for the

guidance and management of children, particularly in matters of discipline. As

previously discussed, culture can be represented by the agreed standards and shared

consensual behaviours of a society (Georgiou et al., 1996; Hall, 1959; Stebbins, 1971).

Therefore, the culture of an accredited child care centre whose staff abide by the code

of conduct should reflect much of the culture of society in relation to interactions with

young children. Consequently, the culture of a particular centre, as part of the micro-

environment, could be held responsible for influencing the production of UCBs only if

the behaviours arise from children being confronted by cultural factors that are different

to those of society. Otherwise, any UCBs could be seen as a product of children

confronting society’s culture in general, as part of the macro-environment, and not

208

factors specific to centre-based care.

The identification of UCBs as being influenced by differences in the centre’s culture was

determined by analyses of staff:child interactions. In particular, the data were examined

in some depth to explicate the way staff as individuals and as a group related to

individual children; the way staff related to boys compared to girls; how individual

children related to individual staff members; how children elicited reactions from staff;

and either uni- or bi-directional antagonism in staff:child relationships.

As previously mentioned, the centre was fully accredited by the National Childcare

Accreditation Council and the program operated by the centre was observed to be

developmentally appropriate and sensitive to social and cultural differences among

children and parents. No UCBs were observed to arise from inappropriate staff

practices relative to normal expectations for child development, religious beliefs, or

specific mores of families emanating from minority groups within Australian society.

Therefore, these matters are not pursued further.

5.10.1 Staff interventions and the gender of children

In the current study, staff intervened to curtail 1011 UCBs initiated by 18 male focus-

children. These numbers represent 73% of the total UCBs being attributed to 60% of

the total focus-child population. The ratio is almost identical to Ebbeck’s (1986) findings

that 60% of teachers’ overall interactions were with male children who made up 50% of

their preschool-age population. To a certain extent, therefore, the child care centre staff

may have been acting in a manner typical of the suggested skewed nature of early

childhood teachers’ interactions with children which, numerically, have been seen to

favour boys.

If staff were indeed responding unequally to boys and girls on the basis of gender rather

than actual occurrences of UCBs then the findings of the current study could be

interpreted to indicate little differences between the level of production of UCBs by both

groups. Variations in the number of UCBs produced by boys compared to girls could

be accounted for by recognising “natural” staff biases towards a greater proportion of

interaction with boys in an overall setting where the genders exhibited an equal

proportion of UCBs. It is possible, therefore, that the current study’s reliance on the

phenomenological perception of staff to identify UCBs, which may incorporate gender

bias, confounded the findings. However, further examination of the data did not support

this proposition.

209

5.10.2 Behaviour management strategies

In addition to claims about gender bias, it has been suggested that staff may be more

likely to target the activities of some individual children with more frequent interventions

than they may direct at others (e.g., Arnold et al., 1998; Neill & Denham, 1982; Reid,

1993). Under these circumstances, the recording of high staff intervention rates on

different observation days may have been the result of behaviour management

strategies directed at specific focus-children, or may have reflected a desire amongst

staff to exert greater control over known problem children (Stebbins, 1971).

During the period of investigation, however, the observer was not made aware of any

specific behaviour management program being applied to individual children. Nor were

on-going demonstrations of differential treatment of any individual child’s behaviours

observed during the current study, although for a number of reasons an examination of

the phenomena is not an easy undertaking in a child care centre. For example, the

assessment of differential treatment requires extensive cross-children and cross-

situational comparisons of instances when similar unwanted behaviours occur. Given

the individual within-child and experiential differences already mentioned, such

comparisons by an outside observer must be considered fraught with dangers of

misinterpretation. In addition, as already mentioned, subtle differences in type and

intent of UCBs also conspire to make hazardous any comparisons between the

behaviours of individual children.

5.10.3 Variations in rates of response to the same child by different staff

Researchers have also suggested that all staff may not respond to the same child in the

same way (e.g., Garland & White, 1980; Minuchin & Shapiro, 1983; Scott-Little &

Holloway, 1992), which could skew the identification of UCBs according to the amount

of time each spends with particular children. Apart from issues of tolerance levels and

specific biases, mentioned earlier in relation to a number of investigators (e.g.,

Anderson-Goetz & Worobey, 1984; Conway, 1990; Crowther et al., 1981; Luk et al., 1991;

Taylor & Romanczyk, 1994), Bugental et al. (1990), in a study of mother:child dyads,

suggested that “identical child-behavior patterns may elicit different responses from

different caregivers on the basis of perceived implications of those behaviors” (p. 637).

While perceived implications of an act may determine staff reactions to certain child

behaviours, they are, again, problematic to examine in a centre. For instance, the

number and range of staff members and others supervising the children compound the

difficulties. Over the 54-day observation period in the current study, for example, the 13

210

permanent staff members in the centre were supplemented, at various times, by four

casual staff, two education students undertaking teaching practice, and two senior-

school students on work experience programs. In addition, periods of staff leave and

the requirements for shift-work over the centre’s 10-hour day, ensured that different

combinations of staff were frequently working with the children. During any single day,

individual staff members worked with specific children and groups for variable amounts

of time. On occasions they had no contact with children while they completed

necessary administrative or domestic tasks. The overall result was that the total time a

staff member spent with each child was all but impossible to record. Without details of

the time factor differential treatment of children cannot be calculated with accuracy.

Therefore, no attempt has been made to interpret the relationship between individual

staff members and the numbers of times each intervened in children’s activities to

identify UCBs.

5.10.4 The child as an elicitor of staff responses

As a rejoinder to the corollary that staff biased the identification of UCBs, the roles of

children in relationships with staff were examined. The literature has noted that some

children may elicit aversive responses from particular adults for their own purposes

(e.g., Snyder et al., 1994; Wahler, 1990), which could impact on the staff response rate.

In the current study it was possible to classify 316 UCBs (23%) as having been elicited

from 11 staff (Table 4.13). The episodes were initiated by 11 female and 13 male

focus-children and most involved deliberate confrontational behaviours by a child that

necessitated staff intervention.

More than half the total was represented by focus-children acting contrary to a staff

directive. Those directives may have been given to a particular focus-child, the group

as a whole, or implied through normal routine. More often than not, a confrontation

followed an UCB in a sequence of staff:child exchanges. On 20 different occasions,

however, the observer could not determine whether the child’s action was deliberate or

resulted from his or her failure to hear the directive, or the child’s failure to recognise

that he or she was the subject of the directive. The situation was typified by the child

who remained at a task after the staff member had directed tables to be cleared or

blocks to be packed away, only to comply with a second or follow-up directive as if

hearing it for the first time. For the purpose of preliminary analysis, however, the

supposed reason for the child not following a directive was subordinated to outcome

and the behaviour was classified as having elicited a staff response.

211

Of the total 316 elicited UCBs, 103 behaviours were classified as one of 27 different

forms of openly defiant acts. These included absconding from time-out; protesting,

complaining about, or questioning a directive; physically resisting restraint or resisting

being moved; and simply declining to comply with a directive. The latter frequently took

the form of passive resistance or an outright verbal refusal to follow the directive.

As 24 different focus-children initiated confrontations with staff at some time during the

observation period, the cultural influence expressed as authority and the issuing of

directives could be construed as playing a role in the manifestations of certain types of

UCBs. This interpretation supports assertions about children’s reactions to their

supposed helplessness in the face of authority (e.g., Greenman, 1988; Miller, 1996).

However, the main issue in determining the role of the centre in the production of these

UCBs relates to the existence or nonexistence of previously mentioned differences

between the demands of the centre’s staff and the demands of society in general.

In further consideration of the above, it has to be recognised that within-child

characteristics may have played an important role in staff:child confrontations. For

example, although 24 of the 30 focus-children were involved in UCBs targeting staff, six

initiated only one confrontation and a further five children initiated only two each. In

contrast, 139, or nearly 60% of all confrontations, were initiated by just five focus-

children (Appendix 7). It could have been the case that these five were having specific

difficulties with conforming to some situations at their particular stages of development

or were challenging the directives to satisfy some other aspect of their respective

psychological habitats.

Anecdotally, the observer’s comments suggest that the demands placed on children in

the centre were unexceptional. It was also the opinion of the author that staff directives

were not unreasonable or unduly authoritarian and were applied consistently and

equally to all children. The resistance and confrontation was more often than not

offered by a child acting alone at a particular time and in a particular place, which

suggests that the psychological habitat of the child played a determining role in

establishing a particular context of the situation for him or her. Few children

consistently confronted staff in the similar situations across time and space, which

emphasised the situational and temporal specificy of the influence of the child’s

psychological habitat.

In addition to exhibiting varied amounts of confrontational behaviour, children also

212

appeared to have different motivations for confrontation. Most events were

undoubtedly initiated by the focus-child in an attempt to prolong an activity in which they

were engaged, or to get their own way in carrying out a new task. On the other hand,

some events were clearly unrelated to concurrent activities and appeared aimed at

challenging authority for its own sake. Examples of different dimensions of

confrontational behaviours observed are illustrated in the following vignettes.

Vignette 5.31 Confronting staff at morning tea

PF13 comes out of the toilet and sits at a small empty table near the kitchen servery. S04 calls to her to join the others at a special banquet style group table set up for the morning tea in the middle of the dining area. PF13 tells S04 that she does not want to move. S04 calls to her again, but PF13 only shuffles with her chair. S04 comes over to PF13, takes her by the hand, leads her to the group table and sits her down. PF13 immediately gets up and moves back to the servery table. S04 watches her go and raises her eyes to ceiling. S10 comes over to PF13, takes her by the hand, leads her to the group table and sits her down. PF13 immediately gets up and walks across to another table near the sign-in area and sits on her own.

Vignette 5.32 Confronting staff at story time

S05 is reading a story to the preschoolers who are all sitting on the floor when PF03 gets up and stands still in the middle of the group. S05 stops reading and tells PF03 to sit down. PF03 does not move, nor does she say anything. S05 tells PF03 that she must sit down or no more of the story will be read. PF03 stands her ground, still says nothing, still does not move.

Vignette 5.33 Confronting staff at lunch time

PM02 comes out of the toilet after washing his hands in the pre-lunch routine but instead of going to a lunch table like everyone else, heads off towards an easy chair in the book area. Staff ignore PM02 who, after a minute or so, takes off his shoes and throws them across the carpet. S10 walks over, kneels down next to the chair and talks to PM02, invites him to come and join the group for lunch, then she moves back towards the dining area. PM02 get up, walks through the home area to the car mat, picks up a toy car and starts playing on the track.

The actions of each child in the above vignettes, and numerous other examples

recorded during the 54 days of observations, appeared unprovoked by any immediate

past or present event. Other children took little apparent notice of the focus-children in

any of the above situations, which in any case did not appear to be a concern of the

focus-child. Eliminating historical and immediate stimuli for the behaviour and

dismissing an attention-seeking motive made it difficult to connect these types of UCBs

with any specific environmental influences. Although each child used the time/space

structure to emphasise the effect of his or her actions on every occasion, the purpose

appeared more closely linked to less obvious within-child needs at the time.

213

5.10.5 The child’s differential response to different staff

Notwithstanding the previously discussed limitations on assessing the time each staff

member was exposed to each child, the data suggested that an individual child might

target one specific staff member for their confrontations more than others. Whatever

the purpose of the child’s attempts to elicit staff responses, the actions may have

impacted on numbers of interventions attributed to that staff member. This was

certainly the case for S10 who was clearly targeted by PM09 more than any other child.

The extent of PM09’s different relationships with different staff can be gauged from the

following three vignettes depicting different aspects of PM09’s array of challenging

behaviour and physical hostility.

Vignette 5.34 Targeting specific staff

S10 is supervising the painting table near the kitchen servery. PM09 walks by - picks up a brush, moves away, taking the brush out-of-area, turns and calls out “fat cow” to S10. S10 gets up, catches hold of PM09 by the wrist and retrieves the brush. PM09 complains of being held too tight, breaks away from S10 and runs to the centre of the room. S10 calls for PM09 to come to her but he stands his ground and calls on S10 to make him come to her. S10 remains at the table - repeats the directive and tells him that she will not chase him. PM09 smiles and moves towards the home area calling out “chicken...chicken…” to S10.

The persistently challenging behaviour exhibited by PM09 towards S10 was not

repeated with other staff members. S10 also took the brunt of PM09’s violent

behaviour, typified by the following episode.

Vignette 5.35 Denying attacking a toddler

PM09 walks up to a female toddler (TF01) and pushes her over. S10 sees the unprovoked attack, goes over to comfort TF01 and admonishes PM09 for pushing the smaller child. PM09 denies that he pushed TF01. S10 takes him aside and starts to talk to him about attacking other children. PM09 shakes free and punches out at S10’s face (misses). S10 holds PM09’s arms at his side and sits him down in a nearby chair while she continues to reason with him. PM09 kicks her.

PM09 hit, kicked and spat at S10 on 16 occasions during 69 encounters that he initiated

with her over the three days he was observed as the focus-child. S05, the other regular

staff member with the class, was a target of confrontations on 12 occasions but the

following single instance of resisting restraint was the nearest PM09 came to making

physical contact with her.

214

Vignette 5.36 The threading table

PM09 gets up from the threading table and walks to home area, swings his threading card at PM18 and PM19 - hits PM19 on the ear. PM19 hurt. S05 comes over and puts her arms around PM09 to physically restrain him and prevent him swinging the card again. PM09 resists, pushes over one of the home area cupboards. S05 speaks quietly, takes him by the hand and leads him back to the threading table. PM09 walks passively with her. S05 leaves PM09 at the table and moves away. PM09 recommences threading - stays at the table.

Over the three days, PM09 was observed targeting only two other staff. S02 was

targeted once and S06 on four occasions, all five events were concerned with PM09

ignoring staff directives, and none induced PM09 to display violent behaviour.

From the raw figures it could be suggested that S10’s greater proportion of involvement

with PM09 might have been responsible for him being credited with the greatest

number of UCBs. The literature indicates that some children may have a role in

establishing bi-directional cycles of antagonism with adults (e.g., Patterson, 1982;

Snyder et al., 1994), but no studies have provided evidence of persistent child-initiated

aversive incidents in the face of inductive adult responses. At the same time, the data

provide no evidence of any coercive cyclical patterning in the relationship between

PM09 and S10. Despite the fact that she was frequently a specific target, S10 was not

observed to act intolerantly towards PM09. Anecdotally, an observer’s comment

suggested that, if anything, S10 may have exercised too much tolerance which could

have contributed to increased confrontation from PM09, in much the same way as the

tolerance of aggressive children by peers was seen as depriving aggressors of

appropriate feedback for unacceptable behaviour (Coie & Jacobs, 1993).

Data for all 54 observation days show no cyclical patterns of focus-child initiated bi-

directional antagonism with any staff members. Pertinent to consideration of a

particular child being targeted by staff are the figures relating to S05 and S10 as the

staff members who spent most time with the preschoolers’ group. Of the 98 UCBs

directed at S05, 12 were initiated by PM09 with the remaining 86 emanating from 13

other focus-children. Apart from PM09, S10 was targeted on only 61 other occasions

by a total of 17 other focus-children. These figures suggest that PM09’s actions were

strongly influenced by within-child factors and a view of S10 that he did not extend to

other staff, and was not shared by other children. The data also failed to provide

evidence that staff, specifically targeted any individual child, or group of children.

Consequently, it did not appear that staff intervention in children’s behaviours, leading

to the identification of UCBs, could be attributed to staff bias in focussing on particular

215

children.

5.10.6 A response to the research question about cultural factors

In some respects the centre’s culture could be seen as being responsible for all

observed UCBs. As each could be interpreted as an infringement of the centre’s rules,

and as rules are part of the culture, every UCB must, by definition, be a product of the

culture. On the other hand, much of the centre’s culture also reflected the cultural

values of the wider society and interpretation of the data concentrated on identifying

anomalies in the centre’s application of wider cultural expectations.

Within this framework of application, observational records were examined for

anomalies in relationships between staff as individuals and as a group, and children as

individuals and grouped by gender, with particular reference to the application of

behaviour management strategies. Results provided little evidence to suggest that the

intervention rates of staff made any significant contribution to the manifestation of

unwanted behaviours in all children. The data were also analysed for evidence of

behaviours initiated by children that could lead to inappropriate social or cultural biases

in the relationships and interactions between staff and children. The behaviour of only

one child could been seen as consistently prominent in relation to facets of the cultural

environment and, in that particular case, within-child characteristics appeared to be

exerting some considerably confounding influence.

Overall, there were no specific facets of the child care centre culture that could be

identified as exerting a global influence on the manifestation of UCBs that could not be

equally applied to situations outside the centre. At the same time, few UCBs could be

categorised as being influenced by cultural factors without consideration of the

transactional influence of structural and social factors.

5.11 Reducing occurrences of UCBs

The second part of the research question stated in Chapter One focussed on identifying

aspects of the physical, social, structural or cultural environment that could be modified

to reduce occurrences of UCBs. Interpretations of the data in relation to children’s

temporal experiences of child care, daily and seasonal factors, and the physical, social,

structural, and cultural components of the environment, had all revealed a range of

influences that exerted different levels of intensity on different children in different

situations. At the same time, it was evident that the children’s psychological habitats

played a major role in interpreting the influences and incorporating them into

216

behaviours. A key component of psychological habitats appeared to be the intent or

goal of the child, which could determine the form of behaviour and likelihood of UCBs

being produced. A variety of child responses to different situations, recounted in the

vignettes above, demonstrated that UCBs could be configured in a range of formats

with different capacities to attract participants and sensitivities to staff interventions.

The differences were clearly illustrated by reviewing UCBs classified as friendly or

hostile encounters, which revealed unambiguous differences in the form and function of

the two types. These included clear distinctions in the aetiology of the encounters, their

influence on the behaviour of children outside the initiating activity, the responses of

participants to staff intervention, and likelihood of continuity or revival of the UCB after

intervention.

Friendly UCBs were characterised by gleeful excitement and exuberance. Usually

starting in dyadic form, they showed a capacity to attract several additional participants

before being curtailed by staff. However, the emotional commitment generated by the

group activity frequently ensured the revival of the action if staff did not physically

separate and redirect the players.

Hostile episodes, on the other hand, usually involved only two children and rarely

attracted additional combatants. The initiators of hostile UCBs appear to be motivated

by one of a number of factors, including those associated with dominance and social

control as well as distress at being accidentally or purposefully disrupted during an

activity. Each episode or sequence of hostile events generally demonstrated clear

forms of aggression, which prompted reactive aggression, expressed verbally or

physically, frequently leading to violence. As discussed in Chapter One, reactive

aggression, also known as emotional aggression, is associated with low levels of

emotional control. In children aged 3-5 years, a low level of emotional control has to be

expected and, therefore, UCBs based on reactive aggression must be considered

reasonably normal in many circumstances.

Overall, the data indicated that observed UCBs resulted from individual child responses

to different combinations of environmental stimuli emanating from the child care centre

and that no single combination appeared to influence all children in the same way.

Further interpretation of the data indicated that the strength of influence of similar

stimuli might be differentially mitigated by the child’s psychological habitat, which

determined the context of the situation for the child, at any point in time.

217

While innate and learned behaviours were seen to play a major role in defining how a

child might react to stimuli, analysis of behaviour streams suggest that such reactions

could be influenced by the child’s level of interest in immediate activities and his or her

physical and psychological needs at the time. As a result the identification of triggers

for UCBs was often confounded by apparent ambiguities in the motivation for actions by

some children, particularly in regard to staff directives and relationships with peers.

As a consequence, it was concluded from the current data that unwanted behaviours

manifested by all children in the centre studied were unlikely to be substantially reduced

by modifying any single factor within the environment. Some UCBs may be eliminated

or reduced by modification of some factors mentioned above, but the unique child

reactions that result from the interface between a child’s psychological habitat and the

environmental components of a child care centre appear to conspire against

generalised forms of environmental control or behaviour management.

218

CHAPTER SIX

Summary, discussion, and conclusions

6.1 Introduction

The purpose of the current study was to investigate the relationship between the totality of

the environment of a single child care centre and occurrences of unwanted behaviours

exhibited by attending children aged 3-5 years. Specifically, answers were sought to the

following questions:

a) How, and to what extent, do physical, social, structural, and cultural components of

the environment contribute to manifestations of unwanted child behaviours?

b) Can any aspect of the physical, social, structural or cultural components of the

environment, which have been identified as contributing to manifestations of

unwanted child behaviours, be modified to reduce its influence?

While the focus of the investigation was on environmental factors as the locus of causality,

the role of the child’s internal dispositions was also acknowledged.

6.2 Conceptual framework

To provide a conceptual framework for the investigation, a variety of issues associated

with definitions of environmental factors and children’s problem behaviours were

considered. These included time-space locations of settings and situations, the basic

components of environmental influence, the child’s psychological habitat, unwanted

child behaviours, and the contextualisation of child behaviours in situ. The framework

was utilised to review literature associated with components of both the child’s

psychological habitat and the environment of a child care centre, implement an

appropriate data collection strategy, and guide data analysis and interpretation of

findings.

6.2.1 The environment

After reviewing relevant literature, the child care centre was defined as a micro-system

with an environment comprising interrelated physical, social, structural, and cultural

components. All activities were seen to take place in physical time-space locations

219

designated as settings. Within settings, children were seen to relate to objects, other

children or adults to generate situations that gave rise to behaviours. The child’s

behaviour was seen as being dependent on the influence of time and the four

environmental components, in conjunction with his or her psychological habitat.

Comprising within-child characteristics and intentions, the psychological habitat was

seen as contributing to the child’s milieu and providing him or her with a context for

action.

Context and milieu were considered personal constructs and, therefore, could not be

interpreted objectively by an observer. However, child behaviours that occurred as a

result of the child:environment interface were depicted as occurring in streams or

sequences, which could be examined in detail through identification of behaviour units and

momentary situations. Analyses of the streams of behaviour provided indications of the

child’s relationship with the totality of the environment across time and space within a child

care centre.

The models of time-space locations, environmental components, and contextualisation

provided an efficacious basis for developing the data collection strategy and the processes

of data analyses and interpretation for the current study.

6.2.2 Unwanted child behaviour

Following discussion about the inconsistencies in the identification of problem behaviours

in the literature, which were recognised as having the potential to limit or confound the

establishment of patterned relationships between children and the environment, a concept

of unwanted child behaviours (UCBs) was presented. Formulated for the current study

to minimise confusion between the description of behaviour and the immediate status of

that behaviour as problematic, UCBs were recognised as phenomenological perceptions

of staff and could, therefore, only be identified reliably by staff.

6.2.3 Literature review

Within the conceptual framework of the environment and UCBs, consideration was given

to methodological issues, particularly those concerned with the reliability of data collection

and the maintenance of ecological validity. In particular, specific strategies for continuous

data collection and procedures for providing unambiguous evidence of UCBs were

established. To provide a detailed framework for analysis and interpretation of the data,

the literature concerned with salient constituents of the child’s psychological habitat,

temporal factors associated with child care centre attendance, as well as the physical,

220

social, structural, and cultural components of the environment, was reviewed.

Findings from previous studies on attributes ascribed to individual children and various

child-nurturing situations, suggested that within-child qualities arising from genetic or

inherited characteristics, prenatal injury, prematurity, trauma, childrearing practices and

the demographic features of a child’s family, may create propensities for certain

behaviours. At the same time, the attributes were recognised as having the capacity to

create expectations in adults for the child to exhibit certain types, styles and levels of

problem behaviour. Dispositions arising from genetics, heredity, biological impairment,

and learning were also recognised as contributing to the psychological habitat of the child.

In addition, motivation and intentions or goals were recognised as arising from the child’s

experiences and abilities to interpret the meaning of situations. Together, these

components were seen to form the basis of the child’s psychological habitat, which were

subject to the variable influence of a changing array of temporal, setting and situational

factors in a child care centre.

The review of investigations into the influence of environmental variables revealed a range

of omissions in the methodologies of many studies that have examined features of

settings and situations relevant to centre-based care. Despite limitations that these

omissions placed on the utility of findings, a wide variety of physical, social, structural, and

cultural factors have been attributed with a capacity to influence the behaviour of young

children. These factors include children’s attendance patterns; the physical

characteristics of open spaces, the physical definition of activity areas, as well as

various specific activities and objects; the social nature of peer group associations; the

structure of the program and organisation of children’s groups; and the cultural values

inherent in the teaching styles and group-management techniques of staff, in addition to

the developmental appropriateness of programs. In most cases, however, these

matters were found to have been examined mainly in relation to children’s social-

emotional and cognitive development. There were fewer studies that examined

environmental influences in relation to the production of problematic behaviours. No

studies were found that systematically analysed the environment of a child care centre

to determine the influence of physical, social, structural, and cultural factors on the

manifestation of problem behaviour.

As a consequence, the data collection and analysis strategy for the current study

focussed on establishing relationships between the child’s psychological habitat, the

four components of the environment, and time. The aim was to identify

221

correspondences between the six elements that demonstrated commonality across

children and situations.

6.3 A summary of primary findings from the current study

Findings resulting from the identification of UCBs, and the analysis and interpretation of

behaviour streams, are presented under six headings. These are: children’s different

experiences of time in child care centres; variations in occurrences of UCBs across

times and days; influence of physical factors on the production of UCBs; influence of

social factors on the production of UCBs; influence of structural factors on the

production of UCBs; and the influence of cultural factors on the production of UCBs.

6.3.1 Children’s different experiences of time in child care centres

Evidence from attendance-times data and observations indicated that the 30 focus-

children each experienced the same centre-based child care differently. The

conclusion was made after consideration of variations in the length of time each child

spent in the centre each day, together with differences in the times each child arrived

and departed, which impacted on the types of social and structural situations they

experienced. The practical outcome for all 30 focus-children was that they each

experienced different durations of play periods, both in the first half of the morning and

latter part of the afternoon, with subsequent variable opportunities for complex play.

For five children, the differences were accentuated by the necessity for them to sleep

each afternoon, which meant that they also experienced short play periods in the early

afternoon.

At the same time, children arriving later in the mornings, or returning from sleeptime in

the afternoon, were faced with the task of joining established groups far more often than

earlier arrivals and non-sleepers. On the other hand, later leaving children were

frequently left without regular play partners or same-age peers at all. Although the

current study did not correlate UCBs with arrival and departure times alone, it was clear

that parents’ schedules and requirements for some children to have an afternoon sleep

applied an exo-system influence on individual subjects that differentiated their child care

experience from that of each other.

The finding has implications for the interpretation of findings from past studies and the

methodologies for future research focussing on the influence of child care or the

behaviour of children in centres. For example, apart from the impact of the child’s

psychological habitat, it appears difficult to assume that the supposed effect of any

222

particular child care centre experience can be considered equal for all attending

children, or equal for any child from one day to the next. Consequently, it is suggested

that caution needs to be exercised in generalising effects of child care centre enrolment

on young children without consideration of their individual attendance patterns. In

particular, arrival and departure times of individual children needs to be examined in

relation to a centre’s program structure, with specific reference to issues associated

with group entry and short play periods.

6.3.2 Variations in occurrences of UCBs across times and days

There appeared to be no specific pattern in occurrences of UCBs that would suggest an

influence of time-of-day, day, month, or season. No type of UCB was identified as only

occurring at specific times or on specific days that could not be explained by referring to

the influence of structure or peer group composition.

6.3.3 Influence of physical factors on the production of UCBs

Analysis of the observational data indicated that some factors in the physical

environment were instrumental in the manifestations of unwanted behaviours in some

children, and specific physical resources may have facilitated the production of UCBs

by others. However, no single physical factor was found to influence the production of

particular types of UCBs in the majority of children, and in every situation implicating a

physical component of the environment there were clear interrelationships with social,

structural, or cultural factors.

Nevertheless, some aspects of the physical settings appeared to exert some specific

influence on child behaviours. For example, indoor open spaces created opportunities

for running in isolation as well as with peers, along with hitting, kicking, and pushing

peers. However, occurrences of UCBs in these categories were considerably fewer

than reported in other studies. Similarly, home and block areas were identified as the

location of a considerable number of UCBs. At first glance the figures supported the

findings of a number of investigations, but analysis of behaviour streams showed that

many UCBs in the home and block areas were not associated with either home or block

activities. In numerous instances, the locations were incidental to other more pervading

physical influences. In particular, it appeared that the soft floor surface afforded by the

carpets in the home and block areas, as well as the book areas, were a defining

influence on many UCBs, especially rough and tumble play and wrestling. At the same

time, the cover from staff view provided by home area furniture and barriers used to

mark the boundaries between activity areas also facilitated bullying and some

223

dominance behaviours.

On the other hand, the social interactions engendered by group play settings, such as

home area, were characterised by high levels of organisation and negotiations between

children, which inevitably led to higher levels of conflict and aggression than would be

expected in areas established for solitary play. For example, there were fewer UCBs

recorded at table settings, such as threading and puzzles, where sharing resources was

not a specific requirement. In comparison, the need to share cutters and rollers at the

playdough table, and glue, scissors and materials at the collage table, contributed to

much higher numbers of UCBs in those locations.

On occasions, it was found that specific attributes of physical locations or objects

appeared to exert some influence on the production of UCBs. In particular, the sandpit

was identified as a site of UCBs related to both its location and designated activities

but, unlike findings of other studies, the area was not rated as highly prone to conflict.

Although a popular activity, particularly with toddlers, the sandpit area was credited with

little more than 3% of the total number of UCBs, most of which were dyadic

confrontations emanating from predominantly solitary play being disrupted by the

wanton or accidental action of another. A number of UCBs also resulted from solitary

players taking sand and objects with them, or throwing objects indiscriminately into the

sandpit, as they left the location. Overall, however, the sandpit was not a site of

frequent UCBs relative to other locations and activity areas. As the sandpit area was

specifically designed for quiet play, the findings suggest that it may be one of the

clearest examples of environmental influences on child behaviours, with many solitary

players occupying a small area with limited resources in relative peace and with

considerable order.

In contrast, the children’s toilet provided a number of examples of staff interventions for

child behaviours that were inconsistent with the purpose of the area. For example, the

mirrors and availability of water were observed to be particularly attractive to several

children, giving rise to a variety of face pulling and water play activities, which were

sometimes combined, leading to smeared glass, wet clothes and slippery floors. The

toilet area was also the location of several UCBs related to bullying and dominance but

in these cases the physical location was instrumental to the program structure and

presence of peers.

Independent of specific locations, either indoors or outdoors, stacks of chairs, benches

224

and tables were used for unauthorised climbing. In most cases, no one item was

favoured any more than others as the intent appeared to be to attract staff, and climbing

facilitated the attention-seeking behaviour. The use of particular items, or stacks,

appeared opportunistic, dependent on the location of staff members or other adults.

Other facets of the physical environment depicted in the literature as important for

children in child care centres were not found to be directly associated with specific child

behaviours or the production of UCBs. In particular, no patterns of child activity could

be identified in relation to soft places, cosy corners, places to rest outside of the

designated sleep rooms in the centre, or private spaces for children. Separately, issues

relating to resource availability, social and spatial density, and clear walkways, rarely

arose in the current study.

Overall, the numbers of UCBs that could be attributed to aspects of the physical setting

were relatively few. Although poorly defined activity areas contributed to a number of

conflicts, particularly on the carpeted area of the preschoolers’ playroom, the number of

object-related UCBs was lower than findings for other studies reported in the literature.

Similarly, few UCBs resulted from accidents or other forms of misadventure related to

building and room layouts. It is possible that the physical facilities of the purpose built

child care centre in the current study incorporated design features that minimised

occurrences of many problems associated with poor design and deficient room layouts

described in the literature. However, it was more likely that both structural and cultural

components of the centre’s environment exercised considerable influence on the

children’s use of the physical facilities.

6.3.4 Influence of social factors on the production of UCBs

The literature concerned with child socialisation in early childhood settings generally

accepts that peers play a major role in a range of behaviours exhibited by children.

However, in the current study more than 45% of UCBs were produced by children

acting alone. While almost half of these one-child UCBs targeted staff members in acts

of defiance, the greater proportion related to a variety of types of behaviours involving

settings and objects. These included misuse of materials and equipment, taking

resources out-of-area, and failing to sit properly in group-time and during meals.

When peers were implicated in UCBs, almost 40% were friendly encounters and nearly

60% were hostile, with the balance being judged as accidental contacts with no specific

friendly or hostile intent. Numerically, the largest single category of peer related UCBs

was represented by physically hostile dyads. The most common aetiology for these

225

encounters appeared to be linked to efforts of some children to exert social control over

others, with tactics that included bullying and attempts by one child to dominate the

behaviour of another or others. When a child acquiesced to dominance, or declined to

retaliate, UCBs were rarely recorded. Observations of these events on a number of

occasions underlined the importance of the targeted child’s response to bullying or the

dominance behaviours of others to the production of UCBs. For example, attempts to

dominate that were met with resistance frequently erupted in verbal hostility followed by

physical hostility, which inevitably led to staff intervention.

The roles of children in these encounters were analysed and individuals were

categorised as an initiator or target of each UCB, or as an accessory in group UCBs

involving other children as initiators or targets. Aggregating results over the 54 days of

observation, it was found that most of the focus-children occupied these three roles in

different proportions, with a wide range of involvement by individuals in each category.

While some children were clearly members of groups and were involved in more UCBs

by association than as an initiator or target, other children were observed primarily as

initiators. Although several children recorded high proportions of UCBs as targets of

others, none were primarily targets and none could be identified as an ongoing victim of

any particular dominant peer.

Part of the reason for the lack of established dominance and victim relationships was

due to the variable attendance patterns of children that manifest as different

configurations of peers within the preschoolers’ playroom each day. The majority of

focus-children attended from one to three days each week, ensuring that few dyads or

triads had the same membership for more than one or two days each week, which

conspired against the establishment of any form of firm relationships between peers.

On occasions where dyads and triads appeared to have establish regular memberships

on particular days, observations showed that peer influence on UCBs was further

complicated by shifting allegiances between children and quite rapid intra-day changes

from friendship to apparent enmity and back again. A number of the shifts appeared

setting dependent, with some relationships changing between nursery and

preschoolers’ playroom settings, and others changing between the indoor and outdoor

activities. In other cases, shifts occurred within settings and appeared to be more

closely related to individual children’s need for solitude or rest, than the attributes of

peers. None of the shifts appeared to have lasting influences on longer-term

relationships between children, however, they introduced an element of inconsistency

226

to relationships and led to the production of a number of UCBs in the short-term.

While the social component of the environment was directly implicated in more than half

of all recorded UCBs, the production of those behaviours frequently emanated from the

extensive opportunities for child:child interactions facilitated by the long periods of free

play afforded by the centre’s structure. Aided by the physical facilities and resources,

the culture of the centre encouraged the development of complex play and, as the

literature indicates, the nature of complex play can be expected to engender conflict.

All facets of the environment were clearly interrelated in providing opportunities for the

production of UCBs principally ascribed to the influence of social factors. At the same

time, the data also showed that the child’s psychological habitat played a defining role

in determining whether UCBs resulted from child:child encounters.

6.3.5 Influence of structural factors on the production of UCBs

Interpretation of the data in the current study indicated that a variety of structural factors

were implicated in the manifestation of a large number of UCBs. These factors

included time-sensitive routines, pack-away periods, and mixed-age groups, in addition

to the previously mentioned extensive free play periods. In particular, it was noted that

the characteristics of UCBs differed between free play and staff-directed sessions.

However, none of the above structural factors appeared to influence occurrence of

UCBs in all children or in different children in the same way. At the same time, other

structural factors suggested in the literature as being influential on behaviour appeared

to have little overall impact on the children. These included waiting time, length of play

sessions, and the contrasting physical impact between high and low activity sessions.

Many UCBs associated with structure, and in particular the staff-directed sessions,

appeared to be linked to children’s understanding of the temporal limitations on

activities imposed by schedules. In a number of instances, the issue was not seen so

much as one of children resisting or objecting to being ordered by time, but one of

children using time as a means of asserting dominance over peers or challenging staff.

For example, the data provided evidence of several children using delaying tactics to

hold up others queuing in the children’s toilet during time-sensitive pre-meal routines.

The data also showed that UCBs were recorded as a result of children ignoring or

hiding from the calls to pack-away and to assemble for transitions, particularly during

the movement from outdoor play to indoor pre-lunch routines. UCBs that disrupted

time-sensitive routines did not always involve delaying the progress of other children, as

evidenced by children acting alone on numerous occasions and appearing to have no

227

intention of disrupting other children in the group. In these instances, it was also

apparent that the child was not displaying attention-seeking behaviour and, in most

cases, was clearly trying to avoid the attention of staff. While the structure was a

backdrop to the child’s actions, the motivations of the individual child and his or her

intended outcomes were the defining feature of each UCB.

Although also incorporating a significant contribution from the child’s psychological

habitat, UCBs produced in mixed-aged group sessions involved babies or toddlers and

preschoolers in a blend of friendly and hostile encounters. A number of hostile

encounters resulted from the inabilities of participants to share resources and assume

appropriate roles in dramatic play. A number of UCBs also arose from safety issues on

account of older children’s mothering behaviours towards the younger ones, and the

objections both of babies and toddlers to the physical restrictions placed on them by

older children. Although the mothering preschoolers were friendly in intent, the

reactions of their targets were frequently hostile. While babies and toddlers were

involved with preschoolers in extensive periods of productive play, incorporating a

number of friendly UCBs, more than 10% of all staff interventions were generated by

mixed-age encounters. Consequently, this component of the structure must be held

accountable for a large proportion of UCBs and disruptions to staff activities within the

planned program.

6.3.5.1 Structure and the culture of free play

The temporal structure of the free play settings in the current study, extending over two

hours in duration on some days, did not appear to be related to UCBs in its own right.

Rather, free play was implicated in many UCBs through the freedom of actions the

structure afforded children. On a number of occasions staff were observed to impose

limitations on the extent of children’s free choice of play, creating potentially avoidable

UCBs. The contentious issues centred on children’s use of equipment and materials in

ways not intended by staff. The most frequent manifestation of the “problem” for staff

was children’s movement of materials into non-designated areas, such as taking

outdoor building blocks onto the wooden fort. Another manifestation was the children’s

reorganisation of balance beams, jouncing boards, and climbing frames to provide

different balancing challenges. Staff reactions to children’s manipulation of the

activities set up for them was evidently bounded by cultural and rearing-climate factors.

On the surface it was possible to interpret staff actions as being present-focussed.

However, while one view could see the children’s actions as exploratory and innovative

(a goal of future-focussed programs), they could also been seen as potentially

228

hazardous for children. Within this assessment of the situation, staff action can be seen

as prudent compliance to their duty of care.

Similar activity by children, but less hazardous, was their unauthorised use of

equipment and materials that had not been made available by staff as a scheduled

activity. On a number of occasions, children gained access to items, such as puppets

and construction kits, that were not on the day’s program. The selection by children

appeared more to do with status of the object, as either highly prized or a favourite

activity, than due to a lack of resources or alternative activities. However, the possibility

that children may have been motivated by a need for fresh interests over long play

periods cannot be ignored. The initial selection of activities for children’s free choice,

and the design of the balancing “courses”, was the prerogative of staff. Children were

not seen to have any major role in the selection process. Overall, therefore, the

structure of the program appeared to combine with the culture of the setting to produce

a limited number of staff:child conflicts over materials and equipment that resulted in

UCBs.

As mentioned earlier, relatively few UCBs involved objects. By far the greater number

of UCBs were produced as a result of hostile child:child encounters involving social

control, attempts at manipulation and dominance during play, and outright bullying, all

of which were facilitated by the free play structure. At the same time, a large number of

UCBs were attributed to friendly and exuberant associations. That UCBs occurred with

greater frequency indoors than they did outdoors suggests that the physical setting may

have exerted a specific influence.

6.3.5.2 Structure and the culture of staff-directed sessions

The influence of physical, structural and cultural factors was also evident during staff-

directed sessions, which were mainly conducted indoors. UCBs occurring in these

sessions were almost exclusively related to matters of child compliance to staff

directives. Many UCBs emanated from children’s infringement of rules about sitting “on

bottoms” and not moving out of allotted places during group-time and meals. Cultural

issues relating to the training of children to conform to specific group activities, and staff

concerns for maintaining control of the process, were often seen to superimpose upon

and sometimes conflict with the primary purposes of the behaviour settings. This was

particularly evident during some sessions requiring children to remain together in a

small area and to take turns in contributing to or actively participating in a group

enterprise involving all preschoolers, such as “news-time”, question and answer

229

sessions, or story-time. On a number of occasions, group management procedures

subordinated the activity and in some instances led to the session being curtailed on

the basis of one or more children’s failure to behave appropriately.

6.3.6 Influence of cultural factors on the production of UCBs

The culture of a centre, incorporating staff attitudes to children and the developmental,

and wider social and cultural appropriateness of programs and schedules, has been

nominated in the literature as an important factor in child behaviour. The centre in the

current study had successfully undertaken accreditation, and observations did not

detect any situation where children were required to be involved in developmentally,

socially, or culturally inappropriate activities. At the same time, rules and expectations

for children appeared realistic for the various age groups and were regularly presented

in verbal form to the children.

Analysis of the data relative to cultural factors focussed on children’s behaviour

sequences to identify characteristics of staff:child interactions. The occurrence of UCBs

in relation to some staff expectations for equipment use and children’s group

behaviours, have already been mentioned above. More specifically, however, staff

interventions were considered on the basis of staff targeting particular children, the child

as an elicitor of staff responses, staff as a target of a child’s attack, and staff

interventions with children categorised by gender. The data provided no evidence of

staff members, either as individuals or as a group, targeting one child more than

another. On the other hand, evidence was found to suggest that children as elicitors of

staff responses and as initiators of actions against staff contributed to the production of

a considerable number of UCBs. There was also evidence to suggest that staff at the

centre conformed to cultural bias observed elsewhere in giving proportionately more

attention to boys than to girls.

6.3.6.1 The child as an elicitor of responses

Almost 17% of all UCBs were classified as confrontations with staff. Some of the 24

different children who challenged or defied staff directives did so during specific

periods, such as routines and transitions, as mentioned above. The majority, however,

appeared to be spontaneous responses to unique situations as they arose. Many were

in sequences of exchanges with staff and incorporated repeated refusals by children to

comply with a particular directive. A number of these sequences reached an impasse

and resulted in staff withdrawing from the situation in order to deal with other group

matters. The effect that these episodes may have had on children cannot be gauged,

230

although it was noted that almost half the children who did confront staff did so on only

one or two occasions during the 54 days of observation. At the same time, the data

indicated that 60% of all confrontations with staff were enacted by only five children.

The skewed nature of the figures suggest within-child characteristics may be more

pertinent than environmental influences on the manifestation of this type of behaviour

and that general manipulation of environmental factors may not lead to a significant

reduction in UCBs.

6.3.6.2 Staff targets of child attacks

Separated from issues of “child as elicitor” were those behaviours deliberately aimed at

specific staff members by particular children. Whereas some children were

indiscriminate about who they confronted, as long as they got their own way, several

others were observed to challenge one staff member more than others. The numbers

for these UCBs were skewed by one child’s verbal and physical attacks on one staff

member, but differential reactions to different staff were also evident among other

children. That children in this age group are clearly able to plan and execute courses of

action designed to irritate and incite non-familial adults is a matter worthy of further

contemplation.

6.3.6.3 Gender of the child

Staff made more interventions in the activities of boys than they did in the activities of

girls, even when specific types of behaviours thought more predominant in females

were considered. However, the differences were not as prevalent in some areas as

they were in others, with the role of friendly encounters and the previously discussed

ambiguity of the status of rough and tumble play being a confounding factor.

The proportion of all staff interventions directed at boys was, however, almost identical

to that found for all interactions between staff and preschool-aged boys in a previous

Australian study (Ebbeck, 1986). The agreement in findings suggested that teachers

generally interact more with boys than they do with girls and that the additional attention

may be reflected in the greater number of UCBs attributed to boys. The ratio of boy:girl

UCBs remained relatively stable across compounded settings, with girls getting closer

to parity with boys during circle-times and reaching the greatest disparity during free

play sessions. Overall, however, there appeared to be little evidence to suggest that

staff were significantly biased towards curbing the unwanted behaviour of boys

compared to that of girls.

231

It could be said that, as the culture of the centre incorporates rules and standards of

behaviour, all UCBs are influenced by cultural factors. Beyond this broad point,

however, no specific facet of the child care centre culture could be identified as exerting

a global influence on children to account for the production of UCBs in any particular

situations. At the same time, few UCBs could be categorised as being influenced by

cultural factors without consideration of the transactional influence of physical, social,

and structural factors.

6.4 Reducing occurrences of UCBs

Analysis and interpretations of the data in relation to children’s temporal experiences of

child care, daily and seasonal factors, and the physical, social, structural, and cultural

components of the environment, provide evidence that UCBs are influenced by a range

of factors. Furthermore, it indicates that these influences are perceived by the child,

through his or her psychological habitat, as being exerted at different levels of intensity

in different situations. While innate and learned behaviours were seen to play a major

role in defining how a child might react to stimuli, analysis of behaviour streams

suggests that such reactions could be influenced by the child’s level of interest in

immediate activities and his or her apparent physical and psychological needs at the

time. In particular, the child’s intentions in relation to the situation were seen to

determine the form of the child’s behaviour and likelihood of UCBs being produced.

The data provided evidence of a wide variety of child responses to similar and different

situations, which demonstrated the unpredictability and lack of consistency in reactions

to peers, places, objects, activities, and staff. As a consequence, it was concluded from

the current data that unwanted behaviours manifested by all children in the centre

studied were unlikely to be substantially reduced by modifying any single factor, at any

point of time, within the environment. Some UCBs may be eliminated or reduced by

modification of some environmental factors, mentioned in Chapter Five, but the unique

child reactions that result from the interface between a child’s psychological habitat and

the environmental components of a child care centre across time, generally contrive to

thwart any centre-wide forms of environmental control or behaviour management. The

findings suggest, instead, that efforts to control UCBs should place emphasis on a

strategy comprising four points:

1 Create greater staff awareness of the unique behaviour patterns of each child

across different settings and situations, including the child’s experience of the

centre and the differential influence of peers.

232

2. Clarify the purpose of settings provided for children and establishing styles of

staff intervention that will maximise the immediate curtailment of inappropriate

child activities and minimise opportunities for children to implement sequences

of UCBs.

3. Give careful consideration to the operation of mixed-age grouping, with

particular attention to the types of joint access activities provided and the

additional demands expected to be made on staff by younger children.

4. Adopt planning policies and activity management strategies that, after

consideration of health and safety obligations within a duty of care, clarify and

implement practices to ensure that the child-rearing climate is future-focussed.

6.5 Limitations of the study

The current study utilised a single child care centre in a multiple case study approach

with 30 children over 54 days of observation. The choice of location, study population,

and duration of data collection was part of the overall research strategy designed to

provide answers to specific questions. At the same time, limitations of such an

approach were recognised. For example, although the centre was selected for its

unexceptionality among accredited community-based services, with stable staff and

sound management, the combination of environmental factors makes it unique among

child care centres. Therefore, the details of findings presented above may not be

generalisable to other centres, settings or situations.

Similarly, the 30 focus-children, while representing almost 90% of the available

population of the centre, were not necessarily representative of all children attending

child care centres elsewhere, or even the centre being studied. While the focus-

children possessed many of the demographic characteristics common to other children

and other families, they were not randomly selected but volunteered by parents who

were supportive of the investigation. The level of interest shown by both parents and

staff, who were prepared to be observed in great detail, may indicate that the focus-

child population was a product of exceptionally self-confident parents and professional

carers. Little is known about the families who did not volunteer their children. Nor is it

known whether their inclusion would have altered the distribution of raw figures, the

frequencies or percentages for any setting or situation.

Finally, although the children were studied for nearly 400 hours, the complexity of

233

findings suggests, in retrospect, that more time may have produced more information.

Although some general child behaviours began to show some signs of repetition and

stability in occurrence, which indicates possible saturation in data collection, the

analysis of behaviour streams revealed many examples of rare incidences of UCBs in

particular settings and situations. It is possible that these incidences may not have

been determined as rare if the observation period had been extended.

It is acknowledged, therefore, that these three design features of the current

investigation impose specific limitations on the utility of findings.

6.6 Conceptual and methodological implications of the study

A number of conceptual and methodological issues have been raised in the current

study. Among those already discussed, in Chapter One, are matters related to

definitions, especially of concepts embedded in the general term “environment”. In

particular, however, two aspects of the data collecting strategy appear to be pertinent to

the findings. These relate to the concept and identification of UCBs, and the use of

continuous narrative to record children’s activities. In addition, the issue of children’s

individual attendance patterns, and their potential impact on children’s experiences of

child care, is raised for general consideration.

6.6.1 Staff interventions and UCBs

While acknowledged as another possible limiting effect on the utility of findings

identifying unwanted behaviour through staff intervention is also proposed as a major

strength of the current study, with significant implications for future investigations of

child behaviour. It is contented that many of the ambiguities and inconsistencies in

previous studies are related to a failure to clarify for whom are children’s behaviours

problematic. The majority of investigations use a range of behavioural descriptions,

usually based on psychological definitions of conduct disorder. The appropriateness of

these definitions in relation to the behaviour problems of young children has been

widely debated and largely unresolved (e.g., Halperin et al., 1995; Richters & Cicchetti,

1993a; Zoccolillo, 1993). As was shown in Chapter One, in the brief recital of issues

surrounding definitions of aggression, attempts to clarify semantic ambiguities have

also failed to reach consensus.

The current study placed the responsibility for identifying behaviour problems with the

people who have to work with the problems, in the settings and situations in which the

behaviours appear. The strategy has allowed the recording of most behaviours likely to

234

be found in psychological-based checklists, without the observer having to be

concerned about definitions or discriminating between what is real and what is

pretence. It also allowed the observer to record child behaviours which are

undoubtedly problematic for early childhood staff but are not recognised as such by list-

makers outside child care centres. In particular, these types of behaviours include

those emanating from friendly and exuberant associations with peers.

Given that UCBs were designated by staff as activities needing to be curtailed, there

may be apparent implications for a more meaningful definition of “problem” behaviour

for research designed to provide practical information for teachers. Under the strategy

employed in the current study, staff designated what could be described as some noisy,

boisterous, and generally excitable or gleeful behaviours as “unwanted”. The

designation was deemed appropriate by all staff concerned with issues of group

management, and was observed to have been applied to all children equally and

consistently over the period of investigation.

6.6.2 Full-day continuous observations

Individually, UCBs provided a clear indication of the type of child activities staff found

unacceptable or inappropriate at particular times and in particular places. As indicated

in the previous chapter, however, a number of behaviours were open to

misinterpretation. Without access to consequent, as well as antecedent events, the

meaning of some child behaviours may have been impossible to define.

An essential factor in attempting to interpret the meaning of a child’s behaviour and

assess its relationship to environmental influences, in the current study, was access to

records of complete behaviour sequences. While some sequences involved only two or

three events and lasted for less than 30 seconds, others comprised 30 events or more

and lasted several minutes. With links to other sequences in behaviour streams,

antecedent episodes could be traced back over several hours in some instances.

During that time, some peer associations were noted to shift between dyads, while

others switched between friendly play and hostilities, and back again, within a few

minutes.

The detailed records needed to follow peer group and other influences from the

immediate environment are not available in studies using methodologies that document

behaviours in limited numbers of predetermined categories and/or use time-interval

recording techniques. As the limitations of video-film have already been discussed, it is

235

contended that only full-day continuous narrative is likely to provide the necessary detail

of sequences and streams of behaviour in “real-time”. Therefore, it is suggested that

investigations into cause and effect of child behaviours have to consider the continuous

experiences of individual children.

6.6.2.1 Ethics and observations

The ethical behaviour of investigators has become an important issue in research, as

evidenced by the now standard requirement for approval of most staff and student

research proposals by university research ethics committees. The purpose of the

process undoubtedly ensures the ethical appropriateness of proposed investigative

methodologies, including the form and format of questions, prior to commencement of a

study. The experience of the author of the current study, however, was that the role of

a non-initiating observer of young children’s activities in play areas has the potential to

raise some specific ethical issues about data collection that may need to be addressed

by observers in the future. Watching one child without having to be concerned with

others in the group provides the observer with a singular view of child:child relationships

and the process of their development. It is doubtful whether the author’s experience

was unique, yet the matter has rarely been raised in the literature.

An example of the issues is illustrated by a number of the vignettes that relate

sequences of physically hostile child behaviours. The accounts were drawn from a

range of situations where one child attacked another by kicking, biting, or hitting him or

her with fist or object, which included spades, wooden blocks, and scissors. While

many violent interactions were spontaneous, others could be predicted from patterned

relationships and antecedent events. Although the role of the observer was to be a

non-initiator of contacts with children or staff in order to minimise his impact on the

environment, witnessing and allowing preventable physical harm to be done to a child

created an ethical dilemma. It is the contention of the author that potential conflict

between an adult’s moral responsibility to young children and a researcher’s obligation

to maximise the ecological validity of data collection needs to be discussed and clear

guidelines established for observational investigations.

The author of the current study established his role with staff as totally non-intervening

unless a child was in serious danger of harm and no staff were in a position to respond

in time. The declaration was deemed necessary by the author in order to ensure staff

that they were not being criticised in any way by the observer’s intervention in child

activities. During the observation period the author drew staff attention to harmful

236

situations on five occasions, and physically restrained one focus-child and one toddler

on two separate occasions. Although the author’s intervention appeared to have no

particular impact on the subsequent behaviours of either staff or children, the extent of

influence cannot be gauged and some contamination must be assumed.

6.6.3 Children’s experiences of child care centres

A survey of child care centre attendance times showed a wide variation in focus-

children’s experience of the centre’s programs as a result of the number of days each

child attended and the duration of his or her day. Analysis of arrival and departure

times in relation to the structure of the centre, staff work shifts, and patterns of peer

group attendance, suggests that each child may experience the same child care centre

differently to other children, rather than simply experience more or less than other

children. Examples were provided to show that opportunities for quiet intimate times

with particular staff were minimised for later arriving and earlier departing children. At

the same time, consistently later arrivals and children designated to sleep in the

afternoon were regularly confronted with having to enter groups that had already

established their territories and membership. Finally, it was noted that arrival and

departure times also impact on the time some children spent in some free play

sessions, and that the limitations may have consequences for opportunities to develop

complex play.

The issue was identified as possibly impacting on child behaviours, particularly in the

first half of the morning and last half of the afternoon. More importantly, perhaps, is that

difference experiences of child care for individual children in the same centre may have

the potential to confound findings related to investigations of the general influence of

child care centres and their programs on attending children.

6.7 New literature

Since commencing the writing of this thesis, no further studies have been published that

have focussed on the influence of child care centre environments on children’s

behaviour. However, a number of other related issues have received attention, both in

academic literature and the print media, and are cited below.

6.7.1 Brain neurology

In addition to investigations into the effects of brain damage and impairment of

executive functioning on behaviour, reviewed in Chapter Two as a component of the

child’s psychological habitat, renewed interest has recently been shown in brain

237

research generally. Moir and Jessel (1991) had previously reviewed findings

demonstrating differences in the brain circuitry of individuals, particularly in relation to

gender specific behaviours. In the current resurgence of interest, however, both

researchers and practitioners have begun to rediscover the importance of the

environment to infant brain development and behaviour. A recent issue of Every Child,

a magazine published by the Australian Early Childhood Association, incorporated five

articles to provide a broad introduction to the implications of brain research in

understanding environmental influences on child development (Corrie, 2000a; Dockett,

2000; Lawrence, 2000; Linke, 2000; Rolfe, 2000). At almost the same time, the

Australian Journal of Early Childhood published one article extolling the virtues of

neuroscience for the field of early childhood education (Talay-Ongan, 2000) and one

urging a more cautious approach (Corrie, 2000b).

In general, the emphasis of all seven articles was on child development with no direct

reference to externalised problem child behaviours. Rather, the implications of brain

research provide an alternative to genetics or learning as a theoretical pathway for

children acquiring the potential or propensity for problematic behaviour. Brain research

proposes the existence of biological connections between neural development and the

child’s subsequent socio-emotional control and cognitive growth. While claims for the

connection are not new (e.g., Moffitt, 1993), generalisation of the implications for staff in

early childhood services is a comparatively recent application of findings. However, as

Elliott (2000) observed, “to date, neuroscience provides very tenuous connections to

educational practice in the early childhood setting….there is limited specific knowledge

about relationships between brain development and neural circuitry and functioning,

and best educational practices and outcomes” (p. 3).

6.7.2 Iron deficiency

The review in Chapter Two also considered the impact of toxins and trauma on the

young child’s neurological development. More recently, iron deficiency in young

children has been brought to the fore in Australia with the claim that “…up to 25 per

cent of Australian children under the age of two may be iron deficient”, accompanied by

the warning that “…iron deficiency can have a negative effect on concentration,

memory, and even basic motor skills” (Cleghorn, 2000, p. 16). Interest in the topic as a

matter of current concern in relation to young children appears to have followed

increased attention to the subject in America over the past few years (e.g., Cohen,

1999; Graeber, 1997; Satter, 1999).

238

More recently, interest has also included investigations into the effects of lead poisoning

combined with iron deficiency, particularly on memory (Wright et al., 2000).

6.7.3 Seasonal affective disorder (SAD)

A wide review of research into SAD has recently been published by Mersch,

Middendorp, Bouhuys, Beersma, and van den Hoofdakker, (1999). In addition, Glod and

Baisden (1999) have completed a study of school-age children. However, neither the

review nor the new study provide any further indication of the likelihood that children under

the age of five years suffer from the affliction or exhibit any symptoms.

6.7.4 Forms of aggression

Crick, Casas, and Ku (1999) have recently found that girls are not only more likely to use

relational forms of aggression than boys, but that girls were more likely than boys to be

relationally victimised. The current study recorded only one incident interpreted as

relational aggression, but did not utilise a data collection strategy that would have more

accurately recorded episodes of relational aggression. It is possible, therefore, that the

current study may have misinterpreted some of the girls’ verbally hostile interactions,

although these were relatively small in number.

6.7.5 Staff of child care centres

Following on from the discussion relating to staff in Chapter Two (2.3.5.2), Press (1999)

recently added currency to the problem of maintaining consistency in child care centre

programs and practices because of continuing high staff turnover and the employment

of casual staff to replace full-time staff.

6.7.6 Emotive views of child care

Emotive reports and stories about the harm or otherwise of out-of-home child care,

referred to in Chapter Two (2.3.1), have continued to appear in Australian newspapers

and magazines (e.g., Cook, 1999a; Cox, 1999) and in one medical journal (Cook,

1999b), indicating the ongoing influence of this approach.

6.7.7 Summary of new literature

Although making no fundamental difference to the analysis or interpretation of data in

the current study, the findings and comments from the above literature indicate the

currency of many issues upon which parts of the current investigation were based.

239

6.8 Future study

To add to knowledge of the influence of environmental factors on the manifestation of

unwanted behaviours of preschool-age children, the current study amalgamated a

number of older and extant models of person:environment relations to create a

conceptual framework for the investigation. The relatively unique perspective on

child:environment relationships provided by the framework, and the extensive amount

of data collected through the strategy of recording continuous narrative in which UCBs

were identified by staff, raised a number of methodological and child care issues. The

four most salient are listed below and recommended for future study, both to clarify

findings in the current investigation and to add further to the limited existing knowledge

about child:environment relationships in a child care centre.

6.8.1 Developing a conceptual framework for investigating environments

The current study has developed and utilised a conceptual framework for reviewing

literature and collecting, analysing and interpreting data concerned with determining the

influence of the environments of child care centres on the behaviours of attending

children. The framework provided a model of activity settings and situations in time and

space, a conceptualisation of component parts of the child care centre environment, a

contextualisation of the child’s behaviour in situ, and a conceptualisation of unwanted

child behaviours in a child care centre. Each one of these basic concepts, and the

methodology for the investigation that was based on them, will undoubtedly benefit from

further development and refinement to create a common platform for the analysis of

environmental variables on the behaviour and development of children in various early

childhood settings. The creation of a common platform for investigations will help

overcome much of the ambiguity and confusion that surrounds many of the findings and

current ideas about early childhood environments. It will also help establish a sound

basis for comparing studies of environmental influence across different settings.

6.8.2 Children’s different experiences of the same child care program

While the current study found that children have different social, structural, and cultural

experiences of child care centres as a result of their attendance patterns, the findings

need to be investigated further. The extent of those differences evidenced by the data

suggests that much more attention needs to be given to child characteristics based on

the nature of his or her experiences, rather than relying on demographic data, in future

studies. However, the possible influence of variable attendance patterns on children’s

behaviour needs to be established and documented.

240

6.8.3 Advantages and disadvantages of mixed-age grouping

A considerable proportion of UCBs were created through the preschoolers’ interactions

with toddlers and babies. Many encounters were physically hostile and embodied risk

of injury to participants, particularly to smaller children. Therefore, the impact of mixed-

age socialisation on the immediate behaviour of all children involved in mixed-age

groupings needs to be investigated. The literature review indicated little recent study of

the topic and no systematic examination of the benefits or otherwise for children and

staff in Australian child care centres. Consequently, current practices of mixed-age

grouping appear to have little basis in the findings of research in areas of child

development, group management, or administration. In particular, the benefits to staff

and to all involved children need to be established and documented.

6.8.4 Benefits of soft and cosy corners, and private places

The literature advocating cosy corners, soft places, places to rest, and private places in

child care centres is characterised by a lack of evidence to support either their need or

explain their purpose in relation to children aged 3-5 years in a child care centre. Such

facilities have been suggested as necessary for children to retreat from high activity, to

recover from fatigue, to escape the frustration of continual social interaction, and to find

solitude. However, few studies have examined children’s needs for these facilities in

relation to centre programs and activity choices, or the success the facilities have had in

meeting those needs. As tired, fatigued or frustrated children are likely to be more

prone to UCBs, it appears appropriate to examine the impact of programs on children’s

levels of energy and tolerance, as well as the efficacy of various ways in which children

can be provided with opportunities to retreat from high activity and to find solitude, if

required.

6.9 Postscript

The current study set out to investigate the influence of the environment of a child care

centre on the production of unwanted child behaviours to facilitate their reduction. The

data collected from close observation of the children over many hours clearly

demonstrated that unwanted behaviours resulted from individual child responses to

different combinations of environmental stimuli emanating from a variety of settings and

situations. Interpretation of the evidence showed that no single combination of those

stimuli appeared to influence all children in the same way. To explain the phenomena,

it was suggested that the influence of stimuli is likely to be dependent on the child’s

psychological habitat, which determined the context of the situation for the child, at any

point in time and space. Despite the apparent inconsistencies in child responses, a

241

number of general recommendations were made that could help minimise the

production of unwanted behaviours in a child care centre.

The findings upon which these conclusions and recommendations were made were

derived from the study of a centre that was selected for its stable management, staff

membership, and overall program. These conditions were seen as a necessary

prerequisite for the study of multiple cases (the focus-children) within a single setting

(the child care centre). The author expected that such stability would provide

consistency and patterning in the structural and cultural components of the environment

that would, in turn, help maintain a relatively constant social component of the

environment. There were no expectations for any changes to the physical setting.

While these factors did remain reasonably consistent and stable over the five month

period of observation, two specific exo-system events that occurred a few weeks after

completion of the data collection appear to have irrevocably impacted on the social and

physical aspects of the centre for the current population of enrolled children.

In the first case, the ongoing behaviour management of PM09, and staff members' work

with his parents, began to show results in reducing the number and intensity of his

unwanted behaviours. He was reported to have calmed considerably and was

participating well in groups and socialising appropriately with most of the other children.

However, his parents later separated and by the New Year his behaviour in the centre

had deteriorated to the extent that he had to be removed altogether. Given the amount

of negative peer interaction that had involved PM09 during the observations, it is

difficult to estimate what influence he would have had on the behaviours of other

children during his periods of relative calm, then increased hostility, and the final

departure. However, it is probably safe to say the overall climate of the preschoolers'

playroom would have been substantially altered as a consequence of the changes.

This case demonstrates the impact that the behaviour of one child can have on any

group.

In the second case, the physical surroundings of the centre were transformed

substantially when staff and parents’ protests were unsuccessful in preventing

development of a petrol station on the vacant bushland adjacent to the nursery.

Although additional protests had succeeded in delaying, at least, the building of a hotel

and liquor outlet next to the service station, the siting of the centre has now changed

from a suburban bushland setting to one more closely associated with industry. What

242

short- or long-term impact the change to the ambient sounds and noise levels, as well

as increased traffic and air pollution, will have on the centre's operation is difficult to

calculate at this early stage. The case demonstrates the fragility of physical

environments for children that are subject to exo-system factors, particularly those

comprising commercial development.

Both cases also demonstrate the dynamism of the environments of individual child care

centres, and the deficiencies inherent in many claims that assign general behavioural

consequences for children attending child care centres. The current study has already

acknowledged the limitations of generalising the findings of an investigation into the

environmental influences on child behaviours in a single child care centre. To that must

be added the limitations imposed by studying one centre at one point in time.

243

REFERENCE LIST Abbott, C., & Abbott, C. (1995). Child care centre design and the potential of architecture.

Washington DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement. (ERIC Documents Reproduction Service No. ED 387 258).

Abramovitch, R., & Strayer, F. (1978). Preschool social organization: Agonistic, spacing,

and attentional behaviors. In L. Krames, P. Pliner, & T. Alloway (Eds.), Aggression, Dominance, and Individual Spacing (Vol. 4, pp. 107-128). New York: Plenum Press.

Achenbach, T. M. (1993). Taxonomy and comorbidity of conduct problems: Evidence

from empirically based approaches. Development and Psychopathology, 5, 51-64.

Achenbach, T. M., Howell, C. T., Quay, H. C., & Conners, C. K. (1991). National survey

of problems and competencies among four- to sixteen-year-olds: Parents' reports for normative and clinical samples. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 56(3), v-120.

Adams, G. R. (1977). Physical attractiveness research. Human Development, 20,

217-239. Adams, G. R., & Crane, P. (1980). An assessment of parents' and teachers' expectations

of preschool children's social preference for attractive or unattractive children and adults. Child Development, 51, 224-231.

Alexander, C., Ishikawa, S., Silverstein, M., Jacobson, M., Fiksdahl-King, I., & Angel, S.

(1977). A Pattern Language. New York: Oxford University Press. Alloway, N. (1997). Early childhood education encounters the postmodern: What do we

know? What can we count as 'true'? Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 22(2), 1-5.

Aloa, V. (1994). Temperament: Implications for practitioners working with infants and

toddlers. In T. Bekkers (Ed.), Proceedings of the 20th Triennial Conference of the Australian Early Childhood Association (no page numbers). Perth: Bekkers and Associates.

Alpern, L., & Lyons-Ruth, K. (1993). Preschool children at social risk: Chronicity and

timing of maternal depressive symptoms and child behavior problems at school and at home. Development and Psychopathology, 5(3), 371-387.

Altepeter, T. S., & Breen, M. J. (1989). The Home Situations Questionnaire (HSQ) and

the School Situations Questionnaire (SSQ): Normative data and an evaluation of psychometric properties. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 7(4), 312-322.

Altepeter, T. S., & Breen, M. J. (1992). Situational variation in problem behavior at home

and school in attention deficit disorder with hyperactivity: A factor analytic study. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 33(4), 741-748.

244

Altman, I., & Rogoff, B. (1987). World views in Psychology: Trait, interactional, organismic, and transactional perspectives. In D. Stokols & I. Altman (Eds.), Handbook of Environmental Psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 7-40). New York: John Wiley and Sons.

Anderson-Goetz, D., & Worobey, J. (1984). The young child's temperament: Implications

for child care. Childhood Education, November/December, 134-140. Anonymous (1996, Winter). Dealing with JET as a director. Rattler, (38), pp. 8-9. Ariès, P. (1962). Centuries of Childhood. (Robert Baldick, Trans.) London: Jonathan

Cape. Arnold, D. H., McWilliams, L., & Arnold, E. H. (1998). Teacher discipline and child

misbehavior in day care: Untangling causality with correlational data. Developmental Psychology, 34(2), 276-287.

Ashby, G. (1991). Professional ethics: An overview of discussion in the Australian early

childhood journals 1960-1990. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 16(1), 11-16.

Atwater, J. B., & Morris, E. K. (1988). Teachers' instructions and children's compliance in

preschool classrooms: A descriptive analysis. Journal of Applied Behavioral Analysis, 21(2), 157-167.

Averill, J. R. (1982). Anger & Aggression: An Essay on Emotion. New York:

Springer-Verlag. Azar, L., & Tansey, J. (1995, Winter). Enlisting parents' help during periods of staff

turnover. Rattler, (34), pp. 11-12. Baghurst, P., McMichael, A. J., Wigg, N. R., Vimpani, G., Robertson, E. F., Roberts, R. J.,

& Tong, S. (1993). Environmental exposure to lead and children's intelligence at the age of seven years: The Port Pirie Cohort Study. New England Journal of Medicine, 327(18), 1279-1284.

Balcombe, J., & Tansey, J. (1996, Autumn). Childcare workers who are parents. Rattler,

(37), pp. 8-11. Ball, A. (1997, September). Regulations alert. Broadside, p. 1. Bandura, A. (1973). Aggression: A Social Learning Analysis. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. Bandura, A. (1992). Social cognitive theory. In R. Vasta (Ed.), Six Theories of Child

Development (pp. 1-60). London: Jessica Kingsley. Bandura, A., & Walters, R. H. (1959). Adolescent aggression. New York: Ronald Press. Barker, R. G. (1963a). On the nature of environment. Journal of Social Issues, 19(4),

17-38. Barker, R. G. (1963b). The stream of behavior as an empirical problem. In R. G. Barker

(Ed.), The Stream of Behavior: Explorations of its Structure & Content (pp. 1-22). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

245

Barker, R. G. (1968). Ecological Psychology. California: Stanford University Press. Barnes, S. (1996, Summer). Becoming a non-teaching director. Rattler, (36), pp. 7-8. Barnett, B., Schaafsma, M. F., Guzman, A. M., & Parker, G. B. (1991). Maternal anxiety:

A 5 year review of an intervention study. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 32(3), 423-438.

Baskett, L. M. (1984). Ordinal position differences in children's family interactions.

Developmental Psychology, 20(6), 1026-1031. Bay-Hinitz, A. K., Peterson, R. F., & Quilitch, H. R. (1994). Cooperative games: A way to

modify aggressive and cooperative behaviours in young children. Journal of Applied Behaviour Analysis, 27(3), 435-446.

Beattie, J. (1993, Summer). Lead and young children - what can services do? Rattler,

(28), pp. 16-18. Bechtel, R. B. (1974). The undermanned environment: A universal theory? In D. H.

Carson (Ed.), Man-Environment Interactions: Evaluations and Applications, Part II (pp. 227-244). Stroudsburg PA: Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross.

Behar, L. B. (1977). The Preschool Behavior Questionnaire. Journal of Abnormal Child

Psychology, 5(3), 265-275. Bell, R. Q. (1965). Developmental Psychology. Annual review of Psychology, 16, 1-38. Belsky, J. (1988). The 'effects' of infant day care reconsidered. Early Childhood Research

Quarterly, 3, 235-272. Belsky, J., & Steinberg, L. D. (1978). The effects of day care: A critical review. Child

Development, 49, 929-949. Bennett, L. (1991). Women, exploitation and the Australian child care industry: Breaking

the vicious circle. Journal of Industrial Relations, 33(1), 20-40. Berk, L. E. (1971). Effects of variations in the nursery school setting on environmental

constraints and children's modes of adaptation. Child Development, 42, 839-869. Berkowitz, L. (1993). Aggression: Its causes, consequences, and control. Philadelphia:

Temple University Press. Berndt, T. J. (1977). The effects of reciprocity norms on moral judgement and causal

attribution. Child Development, 48, 1322-1330. Berscheid, E., & Walster, E. (1972). Beauty and the beast. Psychology Today, 5, 41-46,

74. Biddulph, S. (1997). Raising Boys. Sydney: Finch Publishing. Biggs, J. B., & Collis, K. F. (1991). Multimodal learning and the quality of intelligent

behavior. In H. A. H. Rowe (Ed.), Intelligence: Reconceptualization and Measurement (pp. 57-76). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

246

Bijou, S. W. (1992). Behavior analysis. In R. Vasta (Ed.), Six Theories of Child Development (pp. 61-83). London: Jessica Kingsley.

Björkqvist, K., & Niemelä, P. (1992). New trends in the study of female aggression. In K.

Björkqvist & P. Niemelä (Eds.), Of Mice and Women: Aspects of Female Aggression (pp. 3-16). San Diego: Academic Press.

Björkqvist, K., Österman, K., & Kaukiainen, A. (1992). The development of direct and

indirect aggressive strategies in males and females. In K. Björkqvist & P. Niemelä (Eds.), Of Mice and Women: Aspects of Female Aggression (pp. 51-64). San Diego: Academic Press.

Block, J., & Block, J. H. (1981). Studying situational dimensions: a grand perspective and

some limited empiricism. In D. Magnusson (Ed.), Toward a Psychology of Situations: An Interactional Perspective (pp. 85-106). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Body, M. K. (1955). Patterns of aggression in the nursery school. Child Development,

26(1), 3-11. Boisen, M. A. (1992). The relation between length of play period and the frequency of

reported conflicts by preschool children. Education and treatment of children, 15(4), 310-319.

Boray, B. F., Gifford, R., & Rosenblood, L. (1989). Effects of warm white, cool white and

full-spectrum fluorescent lighting on simple cognitive performance and rating of others. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 9, 297-308.

Bradley, R. H., & Caldwell, B. M. (1984). The HOME Inventory and family demographics.

Developmental Psychology, 20(2), 315-320. Bradley, R. H., & Caldwell, B. M. (1995). Caregiving and the regulation of child growth

and development: Describing proximal aspects of caregiving systems. Developmental Review, 15, 38-85.

Braungart-Rieker, J., Rende, R. D., Plomin, R., DeFries, J. C., & Fulker, D. W. (1995).

Genetic mediation of longitudinal associations between family environment and childhood behavior problems. Developmental Psychopathology, 7, 233-245.

Bredekamp, S. (Ed.). (1986). Developmentally Appropriate Practice in Early Childhood

Programs Serving Children From Birth Through Age 8. Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children.

Bredekamp, S. (Ed.). (1987). Developmentally Appropriate Practice in Early Childhood

Programs Serving Children From Birth Through Age 8 (Expanded Edition.). Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children.

Bredekamp, S. (1997). NAEYC issues revised position statement on developmentally

appropriate practice in early childhood programs. Young Children, 52(2), 34-40. Bredekamp, S., & Copple, C. (Eds.). (1997). Developmentally Appropriate Practice in

Early Childhood Programs (Revised Edition.). Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children.

247

Brenner, A. (1979). Trace mineral levels in hyperactive children responding to the Feingold diet. Journal of Pediatrics, 94(6), 944-945.

Brim, O. G. (1975). Macro-structural influences on child development and the need for

childhood social indicators. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 45, 516-524. Brody, G. H., & Forehand, R. (1986). Maternal perception of child maladjustment as a

function of combined influence of child behavior and maternal depression. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 54(2), 237-240.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1977). Towards an experimental ecology of human development.

American Psychologist, 32, 513-531. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The Ecology of Human Development. Cambridge, MA.:

Harvard University Press. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1992). Ecological systems theory. In R. Vasta (Ed.), Six Theories of

Child Development (pp. 187-249). London: Jessica Kingsley. Brown, E. R. (1996). Effects of resource availability on children's behavior and conflict

management. Early Education and Development, 7(2), 149-166. Brown, J. G., & Burger, C. (1984). Playground designs and preschool children's

behaviors. Environment and Behavior, 16(5), 599-626. Brown, W. H., Fox, J. J., & Brady, M. P. (1987). Effects of spatial density on 3- and

4-year-old children's socially directed behavior during freeplay: An investigation of a setting factor. Education and Treatment of Children, 10(3), 247-258.

Bruya, L. D. (1985). The effect of play structure format differences on the play behaviour

of preschool children. In J. L. Frost & S. Sunderlin (Eds.), When Children Play (pp. 115-120). Wheaton, MD: Association for Childhood Education International.

Bryson, A. (1996, September & October). Regulations update. Broadside, pp. 4-5. Buffin, L. (1996, September). Hard joys: managing behavior with a creative mind and a

playful spirit. Child Care Information Exchange, (111), pp. 58-62. Bugental, D. B., Blue, J., & Lewis, J. (1990). Caregiver beliefs and dysphoric affect

directed to difficult children. Developmental Psychology, 26(4), 631-638. Bunnett, R., & Davis, N. L. (1997, March). Getting to the heart of the matter. Child Care

Information Exchange, (114), pp. 42-44. Burts, D. C., Hart, C. H., Charlesworth, R., & Kirk, L. (1990). A comparison of frequencies

of stress behaviors observed in kindergarten children in classrooms with developmentally appropriate versus developmentally inappropriate instructional practices. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 5, 407-423.

Butterworth, D. (1987). Lone father families: Implications for early childhood education.

Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 12(1), 38-41. Campbell, S. B. (1994). Hard-to-manage preschool boys: Externalizing behavior, social

competence, and family context at two-year followup [sic]. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 22(2), 147-166.

248

Campbell, S. B. (1995). Behavior problems in preschool children: A review of recent research. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 36(1), 113-149.

Campbell, S. B., Breaux, A. M., Ewing, L. J., & Szumowski, E. K. (1986). Correlates and

predictors of hyperactivity and aggression: A longitudinal study of parent-referred problem preschoolers. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 14(2), 217-234.

Campbell, S. B., Breaux, A. M., Ewing, L. J., Szumowski, E. K., & Pierce, E. W. (1986).

Parent-identified problem preschoolers: mother-child interaction during play at intake and 1-year follow-up. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 14(3), 425-440.

Campos-de-Carvalho, M. I., & Rossette-Ferreira, M. C. (1993). Importance of spatial

arrangements for young children in day care centres. Children's Environments, 10(1), 19-30.

Camras, L. A. (1977). Facial expressions used by children in a conflict situation. Child

Development, 48, 1431-1435. Carey, W. B. (1982). Validity of parental assessments of development and behavior.

American Journal of Diseases of Children, 136, 97-99. Carskadon, M. A., & Acebo, C. (1993). Parental reports of seasonal mood and behavior

changes in children. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 143, 356-358.

Carta, J. J., Greenwood, C. R., & Atwater, J. B. (1986). ESCAPE: Eco-behavioral system

for complex assessments of preschool environments (Research draft School Research Unit, Kansas City, Kansas

Carta, J. J., Greenwood, C. R., & Robinson, S. L. (1987). Application of an

eco-behavioral approach to the evaluation of early intervention programs. Juniper Gardens Children's Project, Kansas City, Mo.(ERIC Documents Reproduction Service No. ED 276 217)

Carter, M. (1994, May). Moving teachers to move children. Child Care Information

Exchange, (97), pp. 46-50. Caruso, G. A. L., & Corsini, D. A. (1994). The prevalence of behavior problems among

toddlers in child care. Early Education and Development, 5(1), 27-40. Charlesworth, R. (1998). Developmentally Appropriate Practice is for everyone.

Childhood Education, 74(5), 274-282. Charlesworth, R., Hart, C. H., Burts, D. C., Thomasson, R. H., Mosley, J., & Fleege, P. O.

(1993). Measuring the developmental appropriateness of kindergarten teachers' beliefs and practices. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 8, 255-276.

Charlesworth, W. R., & Dzur, C. (1987). Gender comparisons of preschoolers' behavior

and resource utilization in group problem solving. Child Development, 58, 191-200.

249

Charlton, T., Leo, E., Evans, P., & Flagg, P. (1994). Rates of problem behaviour amongst 3- and 4-year-old children attending nursery classes in St Helena, South Atlantic. Support for Learning, 9(3), 129-135.

Chazan, M., Laing, A. F., Jones, J., Harper, G. C., & Bolton, J. (1983). Helping Young

Children with Behaviour Difficulties. London: Croom Helm. Chimienti, G., Nasr, J. A., & Khalifeh, I. (1989). Children's reactions to war-related stress:

Affective symptoms and behaviour problems. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 24(6), 282-287.

Choice (1994, November). The search for quality childcare. Choice, 35(11), pp. 8-16. Christian, L. G. (1997). Children and death. Young Children, 52(4), 76-80. Christie, J. F., Johnsen, E. P., & Peckover, R. B. (1988). The effects of play period

duration on children's play patterns. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 3(2), 123-131.

Christie, J. F., & Wardle, F. (1992). How much time is needed for play? Young Children,

47(3), 28-32. Cicchetti, D., Ackerman, B. P., & Izard, C. (1995). Emotions and emotion regulation in

developmental psychopathology. Development and Psychopathology, 7, 1-10. Cicchetti, D., & Richters, J. E. (1993). Developmental considerations in the investigation

of conduct disorder. Development and Psychopathology, 5, 331-344. Cielens, V., & Cielens, M. (1986). Developing children's outdoor play spaces. In T. Hill

(Ed.), Proceedings of the Australian Association of Early Childhood Educators National Open Conference: Quality Care and Education, what is it? (pp. 122-129). Adelaide: Australian Association of Early Childhood Educators.

Clarke, J., & Gray, M. (1997). 52 Steps to Quality Care. Castle Hill, NSW: Pademelon. Clarke-Stewart, K. A. (1988). "The 'effects' of infant day care reconsidered" reconsidered:

Risks for parents, children, and researchers. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 3, 293-318.

Cleghorn, G. (2000, Autumn). Iron: The key to better learning. Every Child, 6(1), p. 16. Clitheroe Jr., H. C., Stokols, D., & Zmuidzinas, M. (1998). Conceptualizing the context of

environment and behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 18, 103-112. Clyde, M. (1995). Concluding the debate: Mind games-What DAP means to me. In M.

Fleer (Ed.), DAP centrism: Challenging Developmentally Appropriate Practice (pp. 109-116). Canberra: Australian Early Childhood Association.

Cohen, A. (1999). Choosing the best strategy to prevent childhood iron deficiency.

Journal of the American Medical Association, 281(23), 2247. Cohen, S., & Bromet, E. J. (1992). Maternal predictors of behavioral disturbance in

preschool children: A research note. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 33(5), 941-946.

250

Cohen, V., Hill, A. B., Lane, C. G., McGinty, T., & Moore, G. T. (1999). Recommendations for child play area No. R79-1), Wisconsin University, Milwaukee, Centre for Architecture and Urban Planning Research

Cohn, E. G. (1990). Weather and violent crime: A reply to Perry and Simpson, 1987.

Environment and Behavior, 22(2), 280-294. Coie, J. D., Dodge, K. A., & Kupersmidt, J. B. (1990). Peer group behavior and social

status. In S. R. Asher & J. D. Coie (Eds.), Peer Rejection in Childhood (pp. 17-59). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Coie, J. D., & Jacobs, M. R. (1993). The role of social context in the prevention of conduct

disorder. Development and Psychopathology, 5, 263-275. Cole, P. M., Zahn-Waxler, C., & Smith, K. D. (1994). Expressive control during a

disappointment: Variations related to preschoolers' behavior problems. Developmental Psychology, 30(6), 835-846.

Coleman, M. (1971). Serotonin concentrations in whole blood of hyperactive children.

Journal of Pediatrics, 78(6), 985-990. Colley, T. (1959). The nature and origin of psychological sexual identity. Psychological

Review, 66(3), 165-177. Collis, K. F., & Biggs, J. B. (1991). Developmental determinants of qualitative aspects of

school learning. In G. Evans (Ed.), Learning and Teaching Cognitive Skills (pp. 185-207). Hawthorn, Victoria: Australian Council for Educational Research.

Commonwealth Department of Health and Family Services (1998). Annual Report

1997/98. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Services. Condon, D. (1995). ADHD: Maybe not the precision that is often implied. Special

Education Perspectives, 4(1), 3-10. Condry, J., & Condry, S. (1976). Sex differences: A study of the eye of the beholder.

Child Development, 47, 812-819. Condry, J. C., & Ross, D. F. (1985). Sex and Aggression: The influence of gender label

on the perception of aggression in children. Child Development, 56, 225-233. Connolly, K., & Smith, P. (1978). Experimental studies of the preschool environment.

International Journal of Early Childhood, 10(2), 86-96. Conrad, M., & Hammen, C. (1989). Role of maternal depression in perception of child

maladjustment. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 57, 663-667. Conway, R. (1990). Behaviour disorders. In A. Ashman & J. Elkins (Eds.), Educating

Children with Special Needs (pp. 148-186). Brookvale NSW: Prentice Hall. Cook, P. (1999b, 24 March). Home truths absent in early childcare debate. The

Australian, p. 13. Cook, P. S. (1999a). Rethinking the early childhood agenda. Medical Journal of Australia,

170(1), 29-31.

251

Cook, S., & Kirby, S. (1989). Planning and developing a playspace for young children. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 14(3), 9-12.

Cooke, L. B., & Thompson, C. (1998). Seasonal affective disorder and response to light

in two patients with learning disability. Journal of Affective Disorders, 48(2-3), 145-148.

Coplan, R. J., Rubin, K. H., Fox, N. A., Calkins, S. D., & Stewart, S. L. (1994). Being

alone, playing alone, and acting alone: distinguishing among reticence and passive and active solitude in young children. Child Development, 65(1), 129-137.

Corrie, L. (1994). Managing a troublesome behaviour at group time: Talking out of turn. In

T. Bekkers (Ed.), Proceedings of the 20th Triennial Conference of the Australian Early Childhood Association (no page numbers). Perth: Bekkers and Associates.

Corrie, L. (2000a, Autumn). Enrichment programs: low-cost fix for high-risk children?

Every Child, 6(1), pp. 6-7. Corrie, L. (2000b). Neuroscience and early childhood? A dangerous liaison. Australian

Journal of Early Childhood, 25(2), 34-40. Costello, J. E., & Angold, A. (1993). Towards a developmental epidemiology of the

disruptive behavior disorders. Development and Psychopathology, 5, 91-101. Courtney, J., & Kowalski, H. (1995). Transitions in the early childhood day. Australian

Journal of Early Childhood, 20(3), 6-9. Courtney, M. L., & Cohen, R. (1996). Behavior segmentation by boys as a function of

aggressiveness and prior information. Child Development, 67(3), 1034-1047. Cox, E. (1999, 30 March). 'Real women' are entitled to both kids and careers. The

Australian, p. 15. Crick, N. R. (1995). Relational aggression: The role of intent attributions, feelings of

distress, and provocation type. Developmental Psychopathology, 7, 313-322. Crick, N. R., Bigbee, M. A., & Howes, C. (1996). Gender differences in children's

normative beliefs about aggression: How do I hurt thee? Let me count the ways. Child Development, 67(3), 1003-1014.

Crick, N. R., Casas, J. F., & Ku, H. C. (1999). Relational and physical forms of peer

victimization in preschool. Developmental Psychology, 35(2), 376-385. Crick, N. R., & Dodge, K. A. (1996). Social information-processing mechanisms in

reactive and proactive aggression. Child Development, 67(3), 993-1002. Crick, N. R., & Grotpeter, J. K. (1995). Relational aggression, gender, and

social-psychological adjustment. Child Development, 66(3), 710-722. Crockenberg, S., & Litman, C. (1991). Effects of maternal employment on maternal and

two-year-old behavior. Child Development, 62(5), 930-953. Crowther, J. H., Bond, L. A., & Rolf, J. E. (1981). The incidence, prevalence, and severity

of behavior disorders among preschool-aged children in day care. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 9(1), 23-42.

252

Cuccaro, M. L., Holmes, G. R., & Wright, H. H. (1993). Behavior problems in preschool children: A pilot study. Psychological Reports, 72(1), 121-122.

Culpit, G. C. (1989). Socialising the superheroes. Australian Early Childhood Resource

Booklets, No. 5. Canberra: Australian Early Childhood Association. Cummings, E. M., Iannotti, R. J., & Zahn-Wazler, C. (1985). Influence of conflict between

adults on the emotions and aggression of young children. Developmental Psychology, 21(3), 495-507.

Cummings, E. M., & Smith, D. (1993). The impact of anger between adults on siblings'

emotional and social behavior. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 34(8), 1425-1433.

Cunningham, C. (1994). Outdoor play space provision in child care centres. In T. Bekkers

(Ed.), Proceedings of the 20th Triennial Conference of the Australian Early Childhood Association (no page numbers). Perth: Bekkers and Associates.

David, O. J., Hoffman, S. P., Sverd, J., & Clark, J. (1977). Lead and hyperactivity: Lead

levels among hyperactive children. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 5(4), 405-416.

Davidson, J. (1980). Wasted time: The ignored dilemma. Young Children, 35(4), 13-20. Dawkins, M. (1991). Hey dudes, what's the rap? A plea for leniency towards superhero

play. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 16(2), 3-8. Dawson, G., Hessl, D., & Frey, K. (1994). Social influences on early developing biological

and behavioral systems related to risk for affective disorder. Development and Psychopathology, 6(4), 759-779.

de Lacey, P. R. (1979). Compensatory education: a basis for more equal opportunity.

Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 4(1), 4-9. Dean, J. P., Eichhorn, R. L., & Dean, L. R. (1969). Establishing Field Relations. In G. J.

McCall & J. L. Simmons (Eds.), Issues in Participant Observation: A Text and Reader (pp. 68-70). New York: Random House.

DeFronzo, J. (1984). Climate and crime: Tests of an FBI assumption. Environment and

Behavior, 16, 185-210. Del'Homme, M., Sinclair, E., & Kasari, C. (1994). Preschool children with behavioral

problems: Observation in instructional and free play contexts. Behavioral Disorders, 19(3), 221-232.

Deluty, R. H. (1979). Children's action tendency scale: A self-report measure of

aggressiveness, assertiveness, and submissiveness in children. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 47, 1061-1071.

Department of Health Housing and Community Services. (1992). Nationally Consistent

Child Care Standards (Working Party Report Author: Canberra Derryberry, D., & Reed, M. A. (1994). Temperament and the self-organization of

personality. Development and Psychopathology, 6, 653-676.

253

Derscheid, L. (1997). Mixed-age grouped preschoolers' moral behavior and understanding. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 11(2), 147-151.

Dewey, J., & Bentley, A. F. (1949). Knowing and the known. Boston: Beacon Press. Dinwiddie, S. A. (1994). The saga of Sally, Sammy, and the red pen: Facilitating

children's social problem solving. Young Children, 49(5), 13-19. Dion, K. K. (1972). Physical attractiveness and evaluations of children's transgressions.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 24(2), 207-213. Dion, K. K. (1973). Young children's stereotyping of facial attractiveness. Developmental

Psychology, 9(2), 183-188. Dion, K. K. (1974). Children's physical attractiveness and sex as determinants of adult

punitiveness. Developmental Psychology, 10(5), 772-778. Dion, K. K., & Berscheid, E. (1974). Physical attractiveness and peer perception among

children. Sociometry, 37(1), 1-12. Dockett, S. (1995). Children as theorists: Developing a theory of mind. In M. Fleer (Ed.),

DAP centrism: Challenging Developmentally Appropriate Practice (pp. 55-69). Canberra: Australian Early Childhood Association.

Dockett, S. (2000, Autumn). Caring adults: a necessity for optimal brain development.

Every Child, 6(1), pp. 12-13. Dockett, S., & Degotardi, S. (1997). Some implications of popularity at age four. Journal

of Australian Research in Early Childhood Education, 1, 21-31. Dodge, K. A. (1980). Social cognition and children's aggressive behavior. Child

Development, 51, 162-170. Dodge, K. A. (1990). Nature versus nurture in childhood conduct disorder: It is time to ask

a different question. Developmental Psychology, 26(5), 698-701. Dodge, K. A., Pettit, G. S., & Bates, J. E. (1994). Socialization mediators of the relation

between socioeconomic status and child conduct problems. Special Issue: Children and poverty. Child Development, 65(2), 649-665.

Donaldson, M. (1978). Children's Minds. London: Groom Helm. Dreikurs, R., Grunwald, B., & Pepper, F. (1998). Maintaining Sanity in the Classroom:

Classroom Management Techniques (2nd ed.). New York: Harper & Row. Drewry, D. L., & Clark, M. L. (1985). Factors important in the formation of preschoolers'

friendships. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 146(1), 37-44. Drotar, D., & Sturm, L. (1992). Personality development, problem solving, and behavior

problems among preschool children with early histories on nonorganic failure-to-thrive: A controlled study. Journal of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, 13(4), 266-273.

Duffy, M. (1995, October). Is childcare bad for kids? Independent Monthly, pp. 36-42.

254

Dunn, J., & McGuire, S. (1992). Sibling and peer relationships in childhood. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 33(1), 67-105.

Dunn, J., & Munn, P. (1986). Sibling quarrels and maternal intervention: Individual

differences in understanding and aggression. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 27(5), 583-595.

Dunn, L. (1993). Proximal and distal features of day care quality and children's

development. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 8, 167-192. Earls, F., & Jung, K. G. (1988). Temperament and home environment characteristics as

causal factors in the early development of childhood psychopathology. Annual Progress in Child Psychiatry and Child Development, 373-393.

Eaton, W. O., Chipperfield, J. G., & Singbeil, C. E. (1989). Birth order and activity level in

children. Developmental Psychology, 25(4), 668-672. Ebbeck, M. (1986). Teachers interacting with young children: Are there inconsistencies

between actions and intentions? Unicorn, 12(1), 47-49. Edelbrock, C., Rende, R., Plomin, R., & Thompson, L. (1995). A twin study of

competence and problem behavior in childhood and early adolescence. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 36(5), 775-785.

Edwards, J., & Cuff, R. (1996, Summer). The 'grown-up' child. Rattler, (40), pp. 21-22. Egeland, B., Kalkoske, M., Gottesman, N., & Erickson, M. F. (1990). Preschool behavior

problems: Stability and factors accounting for change. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 31(6), 891-909.

Eibl-Eibesfeldt, I. (1974). Phylogenic adaptation as determinants of aggressive behavior

in man. The Hague: Mouton. Eisenberg, E. (1997, September). Meeting adult needs within the classroom. Child Care

Information Exchange, (9), pp. 53-56. Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., Nyman, M., Bernzweig, J., & Pinuelas, A. (1994). The

relations of emotionality and regulation to children's anger-related reactions. Child Development, 65(1), 109-128.

Ekholm, B., Hedin, A., & Andersson, B. E. (1995). Climates in Swedish day care centres:

A methodological study. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 9(2), 97-111.

El-Sheikh, M., Cummings, M., & Goetsch, V. L. (1989). Coping with adults' angry

behavior: Behavioral, Physiological, and verbal responses in preschoolers. Developmental Psychology, 25(4), 490-498.

Elliott, A. (1985). Changing families - changing classrooms: developing support strategies

in early childhood settings. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 10(1), 41-45. Elliott, A. (1995). Scaffolding young children's learning in early childhood settings. In M.

Fleer (Ed.), DAP centrism: Challenging Developmentally Appropriate Practice (pp. 23-33). Canberra: Australian Early Childhood Association.

255

Elliott, A. (1998). From child care to school: experiences and perceptions of children and their families. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 23(3), 26-32.

Elliott, A. (2000, Autumn). Putting brain research to work in the classroom. Every Child,

6(1), p. 3. Endler, N. S. (1981). Situational aspects of interactional psychology. In D. Magnusson

(Ed.), Toward a Psychology of Situations: An Interactional Perspective (pp. 361-373). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

English, H. B., & English, A. C. (1958). A Comprehensive Dictionary of Psychological and

Psychoanalytical Terms. New York: Longmans, Green and Co. Erickson, F. (1986). Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.),

Handbook of Research on Teaching (3rd ed., pp. 119-161). New York: Macmillan. Erickson, F. (1996). On the evolution of qualitative approaches in educational research:

From Adam's task to Eve's. Australian Educational Researcher, 23(2), 1-15. Erickson, F., & Mohatt, G. (1982). Cultural organization and participation structures in two

classrooms of Indian students. In G. Spindler (Ed.), Doing the Ethnography of Schooling: Educational Anthropology in Action (pp. 132-175). New York: Holt Rinehart and Winston.

Etaugh, C., & Happach, A. (1979). Effects of aggressive play on children's subsequent

aggressive behavior. Psychological Reports, 45, 656-658. Evans, G., & Lepore, S. J. (1993). Nonauditory effects of noise on children: A critical

review. Children's Environments, 10(1), 31-51. Fabes, R. A., Eisenberg, N., Smith, M. C., & Murphy, B. C. (1996). Getting angry at

peers: Associations with liking of the provocateur. Child Development, 67(3), 942-956.

Fagot, B. I. (1977). Consequences of moderate cross-gender behavior in preschool

children. Child Development, 48, 902-907. Fagot, B. I. (1978). The influence of sex of child on parental reactions to toddler children.

Child Development, 49, 459-465. Fagot, B. I., & O'Brien, M. (1994). Activity level in young children: Cross-age stability,

situational influences, correlates with temperament, and the perception of problem behaviors. Merrill Palmer Quarterly, 40(3), 378-398.

Fantuzzo, J. W., DePaola, L. M., Lambert, L., Martino, T., Anderson, G., & Sutton, S.

(1991). Effects of interparental violence on the psychological adjustment and competencies of young children. Journal of Clinical and Consulting Psychology, 59(2), 258-265.

Farmer, S. (1988, Winter). Helping children help themselves. Rattler, (6), pp. 10-11. Fawl, C. L. (1963). Disturbances experienced by children in their natural habitats. In R. G.

Barker (Ed.), The Stream of Behavior: Explorations of its structure & Content (pp. 99-126 & 330-336). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

256

Feingold, B. F. (1975). Why Your Child is Hyperactive. New York: Random House. Fergusson, D. M., Horwood, L. J., & Lynskey, M. (1994a). The childhoods of multiple

problem adolescents: A 15-year longitudinal study. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 35(6), 1123-1140.

Fergusson, D. M., Horwood, L. J., & Lynskey, M. T. (1994b). A longitudinal study of early

childhood education and subsequent academic achievement. Australian Psychologist, 29(2), 110-115.

Fergusson, D. M., Horwood, L. J., & Lynskey, M. T. (1995). Maternal depressive

symptoms and depressive symptoms in adolescents. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 36(7), 1161-1178.

Feshbach, S. (1955). The cartharsis hypothesis and some consequences of interaction

with aggressive and neutral play objects. Journal of Personality, 24, 449-462. Field, T., Healy, B., Goldstein, S., & Guthertz, M. (1990). Behavior-state matching and

synchrony in mother-infant interactions of nondepressed versus depressed dyads. Developmental Psychology, 26(1), 7-14.

Field, T., Masi, W., Goldstein, S., Perry, S., & Parl, S. (1988). Infant day care facilitates

preschool social behavior. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 3, 341-359. Field, T., Pickens, J., Fox, N. A., Nawrocki, T., & Gonzalez, J. (1995). Vagal tone in

infants of depressed mothers. Development and Psychopathology, 7(2), 227-231. Fischer, M., Rolf, J. E., Hasazi, J. E., & Cummings, L. (1984). Follow-up of a preschool

epidemiological sample: Cross-age continuities and predictions of later adjustment with internalizing and externalizing dimensions of behavior. Child Development, 55, 137-150.

Fisher, D. L., Fraser, B. J., & Bassett, J. (1995). Using a classroom environment

instrument in an early childhood classroom. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 20(3), 10-15.

Fleer, M. (1995). Challenging Developmentally Appropriate Practice: An introduction. In

M. Fleer (Ed.), DAP centrism: Challenging Developmentally Appropriate Practice (pp. 1-9). Canberra: Australian Early Childhood Association.

Fleer, M. (1996). Theories of 'play': Are they ethnocentric or inclusive? Australian Journal

of Early Childhood, 21(4), 12-17. Fowell, N., & Lawton, J. (1992). An alternative view of appropriate practice in early

childhood education. Early Childhood Quarterly, 7, 53-73. Fox, J. (1990). Ecology, environmental arrangement, and setting events: An

interbehavioral perspective on organizing settings for behavioral development. Education and Treatment of Children, 13(4), 364-373.

Fox, N. A., & Field, T. M. (1989). Individual differences in preschool entry behavior.

Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 10(4), 527-540. Fredericksen, N. (1972). Towards a taxonomy of situations. American Psychologist, 27,

114-123.

257

Frick, P. J., Lahey, B. B., Loeber, R., Stouthamer-Loeber, M., Christ, M. G., & Hanson, K. (1992). Familial risk factors to oppositional defiant disorder and conduct disorder: Parental psychopathology and maternal parenting. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 60(1), 49-55.

Frisch, H. L. (1977). Sex stereotypes in adult-infant play. Child Development, 48,

1671-1675. Fromberg, D. P. (1997, November). What's new in play research? Child Care Information

Exchange, (11), pp. 53-56. Frost, J. L., Shin, D., & Jacobs, P. J. (1998). Physical environments and children's play. In

O. N. Saracho & B. Spodek (Eds.), Multiple perspectives on play in early childhood education (pp. 255-294). Albany: State University of New York Press.

Fuhrer, U. (1990). Bridging the ecological-psychological gap. Environment and Behavior,

22(4), 518-537. Furman, W., & Masters, J. C. (1980). Peer interactions, sociometric status, and

resistance to deviation in young children. Developmental Psychology, 16(3), 229-236.

Gall, M. D., Borg, W. R., & Gall, J. P. (1996). Educational Research (6th ed.). White

Plains NY: Longman. Gardner, F. E. M. (1994). The quality of joint activity between mothers and their children

with behaviour problems. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 35(5), 935-948.

Garland, C., & White, S. (1980). Children and Day Nurseries. London: Grant McIntyre. Gelenter, C. (1988, Autumn). A new child care centre for Brewarina. Rattler, (5), pp.

18-19. Georgiou, D., Carspecken, P. H., & Willems, E. P. (1996). An expansion of Roger

Barker's behavior setting survey for an ethno-ecological approach to person-environment interactions. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 16, 319-333.

Gibson, J. J. (1979). An ecological approach to visual perception. Boston: Houghton

Mifflin. Giedd, J. N., Swedo, S. E., Lowe, C. H., & Rosenthal, N. E. (1998). Case Series:

Pediatric seasonal affective disorder. A follow-up report. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 37(2), 218-220.

Gifford, J. (1978). Is day care really risky: a review of the evidence. Australian Journal of

Early Childhood, 3(3), 28-31. Glazer, I. M. (1992). Interfemale aggression and resource scarcity in a cross-cultural

perspective. In K. Björkqvist & P. Niemelä (Eds.), Of Mice and Women: Aspects of Female Aggression (pp. 163-171). San Diego: Academic Press.

Glod, C. A., & Baisden, N. (1999). Seasonal affective disorder in children and

adolescents. Journal of the American Psychiatric Nurses Association, 5(1), 29-33.

258

Glod, C. A., Teicher, M. H., Polcari, A., & McGreenery, C. E. (1997). Circadian rest-activity disturbances in children with seasonal affective disorder. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 36(2), 188-197.

Goldberg, S., Corter, C., Lojkasek, M., & Minde, K. (1991). Prediction of behavior

problems in four-year-olds born prematurely. Annual Progress in Child Psychiatry and Child Development, 92-113.

Goldman, J. A. (1981). Social participation of preschool children in same- versus

mixed-age groups. Child Development, 52, 644-650. Goldman, J. A., Lerman, R. H., Contois, J. H., & Udall, J. N. (1986). Behavioral effects of

sucrose on preschool children. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 14(4), 565-577.

Goldsmith, H. H., Buss, A. H., Plomin, R., Rothbart, M. K., Thomas, A., Chess, S., Hinde,

R. A., & McCall, R. B. (1987). Roundtable: What is temperament? Four approaches. Child Development, 58, 505-529.

Goldstein, J. H. (1992). Sex differences in aggressive play and toy preference. In K.

Björkqvist & P. Niemelä (Eds.), Of Mice and Women: Aspects of Female Aggression (pp. 65-76). San Diego: Academic Press.

Goodenough, F. L. (1931). Anger in Young Children. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood

Press. Goodenough, W. H. (1971). Culture Language and Society. Module in Anthropology (Vol.

7). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company. Goodfellow, J. (1994). Subtleties of the teacher's style: Messages for children and

parents. In T. Bekkers (Ed.), Proceedings of the 20th Triennial Conference of the Australian Early Childhood Association (no page numbers). Perth: Bekkers and Associates.

Gordon, C., Arthur, M., & Butterfield, N. (1996). Promoting Positive Behaviour.

Melbourne: Nelson. Gottman, J. M., & Katz, L. F. (1989). Effects of marital discord on young children's peer

interaction and health. Developmental Psychology, 25(3), 373-381. Goyette, C. H., Connors, C. K., & Ulrich, R. F. (1978). Normative data on Revised Conner

Parent and Teacher Rating Scales. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 6(2), 221-236.

Graeber, L. (1997, September). Anemia alert. Parents Magazine, 72(9), pp. 43-45. Gratz, R., & Boulton, P. (1993). Environmental hazards in the child care centre. Early

Child Development and Care, 87, 29-38. Graue, M. E. (1992). Meanings of readiness and the kindergarten experience. In S. A.

Kessler & B. B. Swadener (Eds.), Reconceptualizing the Early Childhood Curriculum: Beginning the Dialogue (pp. 62-90). New York: Teachers College Press.

259

Greenberg, J. (1996). Seeing children through tragedy: My mother died today - when is she coming back? Young Children, 51(6), 76-77.

Greenberg, M. T., Speltz, M. L., & DeKlyen, M. (1993). The role of attachment in the early

development of disruptive behavior problems. Development and Psychopathology, 5, 191-213.

Greenblat, E., & Ochiltree, G. (1993). Use and Choice of Child Care (Early Childhood

Study Paper No. 4), Australian Institute of Family Studies Greenman, J. (1988). Caring spaces, learning places: children's environments that work.

Redmond, WA: Exchange Press. Greenough, W. T., Black, J. E., & Wallace, C. S. (1987). Experience and brain

development. Child development, 58, 539-559. Greenwood, C. R., Carta, J. J., & Atwater, J. (1991). Ecobehavioral analysis in the

classroom: Review and implications. Journal of Behavioral Education, 1(1), 59-77. Gruss, C., Jackson, I., Grimson, A., & Hedgcock, D. (1998). Antisocial play in the

preschool: Survey data on children's behaviour and some response strategies in current use. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 23(1), 10-14.

Gump, P. V. (1971). The behavior setting: A promising unit for environmental designers.

Landscape Architecture, 61, 130-134. Gump, P. V., Schoggen, P., & Redl, F. (1963). The behavior of the same child in different

milieus. In R. G. Barker (Ed.), The Stream of Behavior: Explorations of its structure & Content (pp. 169-202). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

Gurwitz, S. B., & Dodge, K. A. (1975). Adults' evaluations of a child as a function of sex of

adult and sex of child. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32(5), 822-828.

Hagekull, B., & Bohlin, G. (1992). Prevalence of problematic behaviors in four-year-olds.

Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 33(4), 359-369. Hagekull, B., & Bohlin, G. (1994).Behavioural problems and competencies in 4-year-olds:

Dimensions and relationships. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 17(2), 311-327.

Hagekull, B., & Bohlin, G. (1995). Day care quality, family and child characteristics and

socioemotional development. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 10, 505-526. Hall, E. T. (1959). The Silent Language. New York: Doubleday & Company. Hall, E. T. (1969). The Hidden Dimension. New York: Doubleday & Company. Halperin, J. M., Newcorn, J. H., Matier, K., Bedi, G., Hall, S., & Sharma, V. (1995).

Impulsivity and the initiation of fights in children with disruptive behavior disorders. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 36(7), 1199-1211.

Hardy, R. C., Hunt, J., & Lehr, E. (1978). Relationship between birth order and leadership

style for nursery school children. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 46(1), 184-186.

260

Harkness, S., & Super, C. M. (1985). The cultural context of gender segregation in children's peer groups. Child Development, 56, 219-224.

Harms, T., & Clifford, R. M. (1980). Early Childhood Environmental Rating Scale. New

York: Teachers College Press. Harms, T., Clifford, R. M., & Cryer, D. (1998). Early Childhood Environmental Rating

Scale (rev. ed.). New York: Teachers College Press. Harper, L. V., & Huie, K. S. (1985). The effects of prior group experience, age, and

familiarity on the quality and organization of preschoolers' social relationships. Child Development, 56, 704-717.

Harris, W. J., & Drummond, R. J. (1977). An investigation of relationships between

teachers' ratings of behavior and children's personality traits. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 5(1), 43-52.

Hart, C. H., DeWolf, D. M., Wozniak, P., & Burts, D. C. (1992). Maternal and paternal

disciplinary styles: relations with preschoolers' playground behavioral orientations and peer status. Child Development, 63, 879-892.

Hart, C. H., & Sheehan, R. (1986). Preschoolers' play behavior in outdoor environment:

effects of traditional and contemporary playgrounds. American Educational Research Journal, 23(4), 668-678.

Hartup, W. W. (1974). Aggression in childhood: Developmental perspectives. American

Psychologist, 29, 336-341. Hartup, W. W. (1983). Peer relations. In P. H. Mussen (Ed.), Handbook of Child

Psychology (4th ed., Vol. 4, pp. 103-196). New York: John Wiley & Sons. Hartup, W. W., & Laursen, B. (1993). Conflict and context in peer relations. In C. H. Hart

(Ed.), Children on Playgrounds (pp. 44-84). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Haskins, R. (1985). Public school aggression among children with varying day care

experience. Child Development, 56, 689-703. Hatch, J. A. (1987). Status and social power in a kindergarten peer group. Elementary

School Journal, 88(1), 79-92. Hatch, J. A. (1989). Young children as informants in classroom studies. Early Childhood

Research Quarterly, 5, 251-264. Haugen, K. (1997, March). Using your senses to adapt environments: Checklist for an

accessible environment. Child Care Information Exchange, (114), pp. 50-56. Hauser-Cram, P., Bronson, M. B., & Upshur, C. C. (1993). The effects of the classroom

environment on the social mastery behavior of preschool children with disabilities. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 8(4), 479-497.

Hayden, J. (1996). Management of Early Childhood Services: An Australian Perspective.

Wentworth Falls, NSW: Social Science Press.

261

Hayes, D. S. (1978). Cognitive bases for liking and disliking among preschool children. Child Development, 49, 906-909.

Hayes, D. S., Gershman, E., & Bolin, L. J. (1980). Friends and enemies: Cognitive bases

for preschool children's unilateral and reciprocal relationships. Child Development, 51, 1276-1279.

Hedin, A., Ekholm, B., & Andersson, B. E. (1997). Climates in Swedish day care centres:

Children's behavior in differing centres. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 11(2), 181-187.

Hegland, S. M., & Rix, M. K. (1990). Aggression and assertiveness in kindergarten

children differing in day care experiences. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 5, 105-116.

Heinicke, C. M., Friedman, D., Prescott, E., Puncel, C., & Sale, J. S. (1973). The

organization of day care: considerations relating to the mental health of child and family. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 43(1), 8-22.

Heins, T. (1996). Presenting rules to young children at school. Australian Journal of Early

Childhood, 21(2), 7-11. Hemphill, S. A. (1996). Characteristics of conduct-disordered children and their families:

A review. Australian Psychologist, 31(2), 109-118. Hennessy, E., Martin, S., Moss, P., & Melhuish, E. (1992). Children and Day Care:

Lessons from Research. London: Paul Chapman. Henniger, M. L. (1985). Preschool children's play behaviours in an indoor and outdoor

environment. In J. L. Frost & S. Sunderlin (Eds.), When Children Play (pp. 145-149). Wheaton, MD: Association for Childhood Education International.

Hestenes, L. L., Kontos, S., & Bryan, Y. (1993). Children's emotional expression in child

care centres varying in quality. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 8, 295-307. Hinde, R. (1992). Ethological and relationships approaches. In R. Vasta (Ed.), Six

Theories of Child Development (pp. 251-285). London: Jessica Kingsley. Hinde, R. A. (1987). Individuals, Relationships & Culture. Themes in the Social Sciences.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hinde, R. A., Easton, D. F., Meller, R. E., & Tamplin, A. (1983). Nature and determinants

of preschoolers' differential behaviour to adults and peers. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 1, 3-19.

Hinshaw, S. P., Lahey, B. B., & Hart, E. (1993). Issues of taxonomy and comorbidity in

the development of conduct disorder. Development and Psychopathology, 5, 31-49.

Holborow, P., Elkins, J., & Berry, P. (1981). The effect of the Feingold diet on 'normal'

school children. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 14(3), 143-147. Holloway, L. (1991). Smoothing the vortex time of day in child care, Proceedings of the

19th National Conference of the Australian Early Childhood Association (pp. 171-175). Adelaide: Australian Early Childhood Association.

262

Horin, A. (1996, 24 October). Child care centres fail quality test. Sydney Morning Herald, p. 3.

Horin, A. (1998, 10 March). Govt subsidy crackdown a real hot potato. Sydney Morning

Herald, p. 19: Supplement Section. Horne, A. M. (1981). Aggressive behavior in normal and deviant members of intact

versus mother-only families. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 9(2), 283-290.

Howe, N., Moller, L., Chambers, B., & Petrakos, H. (1993). The ecology of dramatic play

centres and children's social and cognitive play. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 8(2), 235-251.

Howes, C. (1980). Peer play scale as an index of complexity of peer interaction.

Developmental Psychology, 16(4), 371-372. Howes, C. (1988). Relations between early child care and schooling. Developmental

Psychology, 24(1), 53-57. Howes, C., Hamilton, C. E., & Matheson, C. C. (1994). Children's relationships with

peers: Differential associations with aspects of the teacher-child relationship. Child Development, 65(1), 253-263.

Huesmann, L. R., Lagersptz, K., & Eron, L. D. (1984). Intervening variables in the TV

violence-aggression relation: Evidence from two countries. Developmental Psychology, 20(5), 746-775.

Huntsman, L. (1989, Winter). Child care regulations in Australia - comparisons and

comments. Rattler, (10), pp. 7-8. Hutt, C. (1972). Males and Females. Middlesex, UK: Penguin. Hutt, C., & Vaizey, M. J. (1966). Differential effects of group density on social behavior.

Nature, 209, 1371-1372. Hyde, J. S. (1984). How large are gender differences in aggression? A developmental

meta-analysis. Developmental Psychology, 20(4), 722-736. Isaacs, S. (1933). Social development in young children. London: Routledge & Kegan

Paul. Ittleson, W. H., Proshansky, H. M., Rivlin, L. G., & Winkel, G. H. (1974). An introduction to

Environmental Psychology. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Jackson, E. L. (1996). Work conditions in long day care in the era of accreditation.

Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 21(2), 17-20. Jersild, A. T., & Markey, F. V. (1935). Conflicts between pre-school children. Monographs

of the Society for Research in Child Development, 21. Jewett, J. (1992). Aggression and Cooperation: Helping Young Children Develop

Constructive Strategies. Washington DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement. (ERIC Documents Reproduction Service No. ED 351 147).

263

Jipson, J. (1991). Developmentally appropriate practice: culture, curriculum, connections. Early Education and Development, 2(2), 129-136.

Johnson, J. E. (1988). Psychological theory and early education. In A. D. Pellegrini (Ed.),

Psychological Bases for Early Education (pp. 1-21). Chichester: John Wiley and Sons Ltd.

Johnson, R. N. (1972). Aggression in man and animals. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders. Jones, J. (1990, Summer). Grouping - let me count the ways. Rattler, (12), pp. 6-8. Jordan, N. (1963). Some formal characteristics of the behavior of two disturbed boys. In

R. G. Barker (Ed.), The Stream of Behavior (pp. 203-218). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

Jordan, R. (1997). Education of children and young people with Autism. Guides for

Special Education No. 10 United Nations Education, Scientific, and Cultural Organization, Paris (France). Basic Education Division. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 420 130).

Jorde-Bloom, P. (1988). A Great Place to Work. Washington DC: National Association for

the Education of Young Children. Kahn, R. E. (1996). Chaos theory, scientific revolutions and creativity in learning. In W.

Sulis & A. Combs (Eds.), Nonlinear Dynamics in Human Behavior (pp. 319-342). New Jersey: World Scientific.

Kantor, J. R. (1959). Interbehavioral Psychology. Bloomington: The Principia Press. Karamoskos, P. (1981). An evaluation of the effects of environmental lead on children's

behaviour and intellectual development. Australian Journal of Remedial Education, 13(2), 4-10.

Katz, L. F., & Gottman, J. M. (1995). Vagal tone protects young children from marital

conflict. Development and Psychopathology, 7, 83-92. Kavale, K. A., & Forness, S. R. (1983). Hyperactivity and diet treatment: a meta-analysis

of the Feingold hypothesis. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 16(6), 324-330. Kazdin, A. E. (1993). Treatment of conduct disorders: Progress and directions in

psychotherapy research. Development and Psychopathology, 5, 277-310. Kean, J. (1997). Teacher ethnotheories & child temperament: Impact on classroom

interaction. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 22(3), 13-18. Keating, C. F., & Bai, D. L. (1986). Children's attributions of social dominance from facial

cues. Child Development, 57, 1269-1276. Kennedy, D. (1991). The young child's experience of space and child care centre design:

A practical meditation. Children's Environments Quarterly, 8(1), 37-48. Kessler, S. (1991). Alternative perspectives on early childhood education. Early

Childhood Research Quarterly, 6, 183-197.

264

Kimball, S. L. (1994). The Influence of Lead Exposure and Toxicity to Children's Neurological Development and School Performance

King, R. (1978). All Things Bright and Beautiful? Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. Kirmeyer, S. L. (1985). Employee reactivity and adaptation to observation on the job.

Journal of Environmental Psychology, 5, 355-372. Koch, H. L. (1955). The relation of certain family constellation characteristics and the

attitudes of children towards adults. Child Development, 26(1), 13-40. Koffka, K. (1935). Principles of Gestalt Psychology. London: Routledge. Kohn, M. (1977). The Kohn Social Competence Scale and Kohn Symptom Checklist for

the Preschool Child: A follow-up report. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 5(3), 249-263.

Koot, H. M., & Verhulst, F. C. (1992). Prediction of children's referral to mental health and

special education services from earlier adjustment. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 33(4), 717-729.

Koralek, D. G., Colker, L. J., & Dodge, D. T. (1993). The What, Why, and How of

High-Quality Early Childhood Education: A Guide for On-Site Supervision. Washington: National Association for the Education of Young Children.

Kounin, J. S., & Sherman, L. W. (1979). School environments as behavior settings.

Theory into Practice, 18(3), 145-151. Krantz, P. J., & Risley, T. R. (1977). Behavioral Ecology in the Classroom. In K. D.

O'Leary & S. G. O'Leary (Eds.), Classroom Management: The Successful Use of Behavior Modification (2nd ed., pp. 349-366). New York: Pergamon Press.

Kritchevsky, S., Prescott, E., & Walling, L. (1969). Planning Environments for Young

Children: Physical Space (1st ed.). Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children.

Kritchevsky, S., Prescott, E., & Walling, L. (1977). Planning Environments for Young

Children: Physical Space (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children.

Krummel, D. A., Seligson, F. H., & Guthrie, H. A. (1996). Hyperactivity: is candy causal?

Food Science and Nutrition, 36(1 & 2), 31-47. Kuhns, C. L., & Marcus, R. (1992). Maternal Child-Rearing Practices and Children's

Social Problem Solving Skills. Poster presentation at the Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, Washington DC. (ERIC Documents Reproduction Service No. ED 352 571).

La Freniere, P. J., & Charlesworth, W. R. (1987). Effects of friendship and dominance

status on preschooler's resource utilization in a cooperative/competitive situation. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 10(3), 345-358.

Lacey, J. (1994, Spring). Who cares. Choice, (61), pp. 10-14.

265

Ladd, G. W., Price, J. M., & Hart, C. H. (1990). Preschoolers' behavioral orientations and patterns of peer contact: Predictive of peer status? In S. R. Asher & J. D. Coie (Eds.), Peer Rejection in Childhood (pp. 90-117). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lahey, B. B., Hammer, D., Crumrine, P. L., & Forehand, R. L. (1980). Birth order x sex

interactions in child behavior problems. Developmental Psychology, 16(6), 608-615.

Lamb, M. E., Easterbrooks, M. A., & Holden, G. W. (1980). Reinforcement and

punishment among preschoolers: characteristics, effects, and correlates. Child Development, 51, 1230-1236.

Lambert, B. (1990). Hyperactivity: A review of research. Australian Journal of Early

Childhood, 15(2), 43-48. Lambert, B. (1995). Reasoning and problem-solving: Contemporary theoretical

perspectives. In M. Fleer (Ed.), DAP centrism: Challenging Developmentally Appropriate Practice (pp. 71-86). Canberra: Australian Early Childhood Association.

Lancaster, S., Prior, M., & Adler, R. (1989). Child behavior ratings: The influence of

maternal characteristics and child temperament. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 30(1), 137-149.

Langeveld, M. J. (1983). The secret place in the life of the child. Phenomenology +

Pedagogy, 1(2), 181-191. Langlois, J. H., & Stephan, C. (1977). The effects of physical attractiveness and ethnicity

on children's behavioral attributions and peer preferences. Child Development, 48, 1694-1698.

Langlois, J. H., & Stephan, C. W. (1981). Beauty and the beast: The role of physical

attractiveness in the development of peer relations and social behavior. In S. S. Brehm, S. M. Kassin, & F. X. Gibbons (Eds.), Developmental Social Psychology Theory and research (pp. 152-168). New York: Oxford University Press.

Larson, C. S., Greenfield, P. M., & Land, D. (1990). Physical environment and child

behavior in Vienna kindergartens. Children's Environments Quarterly, 7(1), 37-43. Laursen, B., & Hartup, W. W. (1989). The dynamics of preschool children's conflicts.

Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 35(3), 281-297. Lawrence, H. (2000, Autumn). Stress-free environments: promoting healthy brain

development. Every Child, 6(1), pp. 10-11. Le, M. (1986). Towards understanding: Indochinese refugee and migrant children in

Australia. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 11(3), 8-12. Leach, P. (1994). Children First. London: Penguin Group. Ledingham, J. E. (1981). Developmental patterns of aggressive and withdrawn behavior

in childhood: A possible method for identifying preschizophrenics. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 9(1), 1-22.

266

Lefkowitz, M. M., Eron, L. D., Walder, L. O., & Huesmann, L. R. (1977). Growing Up to be Violent: A Longitudinal Study of the Development of Aggression. Pergamon General Psychology Series (Vol. 66). New York: Pergamon Press.

Lerner, R. M. (1983). A "Goodness of fit" model of person-context interaction. In D.

Magnusson & V. L. Allen (Eds.), Human Development: An Interactional Perspective (pp. 279-294). New York: Academic Press.

Levine, L. J. (1995). Young children's understanding of the causes of anger and sadness.

Child Development, 66(3), 697-709. Lewin, K. (1935). A Dynamic Theory of Personality - Selected Papers (D. K. Adams, & K.

E. Zener, Trans.). New York: McGraw-Hill. Lewis, M., Feiring, C., McGuffog, C., & Jaskir, J. (1984). Predicting psychopathology in

six-year-olds from early social relations. Child Development, 55, 123-136. Lewis, M., Sullivan, M. W., & Vasen, A. (1987). Making faces: Age and emotion

differences in the posing of emotional expressions. Developmental Psychology, 23(5), 690-697.

Lichtenstein, R., & Ireton, H. (1984). Preschool Screening. New York: Grune & Stratton. Lieberman, A. F. (1977). Preschoolers' competence with a peer: Relations with

attachment and peer experience. Child Development, 48, 1277-1287. Linke, P. (2000, Autumn). Infant brain research: what is it and what does it mean? Every

Child, 6(1), pp. 4-5. Lipkovitz-Susser, R. (1994). The effect of viewing violent television programming on early

childhood development. In T. Bekkers (Ed.), Proceedings of the 20th Triennial Conference of the Australian Early Childhood Association (no page numbers). Perth: Bekkers and Associates.

Lippitz, W. (1983). The child's understanding of time. Phenomenology + Pedagogy, 1(2),

172-180. Loane, S. (1996, 17 August). The big business of caring for little kids. Sydney Morning

Herald, p. 31. Loo, C. M. (1972). The effects of spatial density on the social behavior of children.

Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 2(4), 372-381. Lougee, M. D., Grueneich, R., & Hartup, W. W. (1977). Social interaction in same- and

mixed-age dyads of preschool children. Child Development, 48, 1353-1361. Lowry, P. (1993). Privacy in the preschool environment: gender differences in reaction to

crowding. Children's Environments, 10(2), 130-139. Lubeck, S. (1998a). Is Developmentally Appropriate Practice for everyone? Childhood

Education, 74(5), 283-292. Lubeck, S. (1998b). Is DAP for everyone? A response. Childhood Education, 74(5),

299-301.

267

Luk, S., Leung, P. W., Bacon-Shone, J., & Lieh-Mak, F. (1991). The structure and prevalence of behavioral problems in Hong Kong preschool children. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 19(2), 219-232.

Lytton, H. (1990a). Child and parent effects in boys' conduct disorder: A reinterpretation.

Developmental Psychology, 26(5), 683-697. Lytton, H. (1990b). Child effects - still unwelcome? Response to Dodge and Wahler.

Developmental Psychology, 26(5), 705-709. Maccoby, E. E., & Jacklin, C. N. (1980). Sex differences in aggression: A rejoinder and

reprise. Child Development, 51, 964-980. MacDonald, K. (1987). Parent-child physical play with rejected, neglected, and popular

boys. Developmental Psychology, 23(5), 705-711. MacNaughton, G. (1995). A post-structuralist analysis of learning in early childhood

settings. In M. Fleer (Ed.), DAP centrism: Challenging Developmentally Appropriate Practice (pp. 35-54). Canberra: Australian Early Childhood Association.

Magnusson, D. (1981a). Problems of environmental analysis - an introduction. In D.

Magnusson (Ed.), Toward a Psychology of Situations: An Interactional Perspective (pp. 3-7). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Magnusson, D. (1981b). Wanted: A psychology of situations. In D. Magnusson (Ed.),

Toward a Psychology of Situations: An Interactional Perspective (pp. 9-35). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Magnusson, D., & Allen, V. L. (1983). An interactional perspective for human

development. In D. Magnusson & V. L. Allen (Eds.), Human Development: An Interactional Perspective (pp. 3-31). New York: Academic Press.

Magnusson, D., & Törestad, B. (1992). The individual as an interactive agent in the

environment. In W. B. Walsh, K. H. Craik, & R. H. Price (Eds.), Person-Environment-Psychology (pp. 89-126). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Malaguzzi, L. (1994, March). Your image of the child: where teaching begins. Child Care

Information Exchange, (96), pp. 52-56 & 61. Manne, A. (1996, January-February). Electing a new child. Quadrant, 40(1-2), pp. 8-19. Marakovitz, S. E., & Campbell, S. B. (1998). Inattention, impulsivity, and hyperactivity

from preschool to school age: Performance of hard-to-manage boys on laboratory measures. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 39(6), 841-851.

Martin, J. L., & Ross, H. S. (1996). Do mitigating circumstances influence family reactions

to physical aggression? Child Development, 67, 1455-1466. Masselos, G., & Healey, C. (1981). The child with special needs from a migrant family.

Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 6(4), 35-39.

268

Mathias, J. L., Mertin, P., & Murray, A. (1995). The psychological functioning of children from backgrounds of domestic violence. Australian Psychologist, 30(1), 47-56.

Matsuura, M., Okubo, Y., Kojima, T., Takahashi, R., Wang, Y. F., Shen, Y. C., & Lee, C.

K. (1993). A cross-national prevalence study of children with emotional and behavioural problems - A WHO collaborative study in the Western Pacific Region. Journal of Child Psychology, Psychiatry, and Allied Disciplines, 34(3), 307-315.

Mattes, J. A. (1983). The Feingold diet: A current reappraisal. Journal of Learning

Disabilities, 16(6), 319-323. Maxwell, L. E. (1996). Multiple effects of home and day care crowding. Environment and

Behaviour, 28(4), 494-511. Maynard, D. W. (1985). On the functions of social conflict among children. American

Sociological Review, 50(2), 207-223. Mayron, L. W. (1978). Hyperactivity from fluorescent lighting - fact or fancy: A

commentary on the report by O'Leary, Rosenbaum, and Hughes. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 6(3), 291-294.

McCabe, P. P. (1991). Low level lead toxicity: The hidden challenge for educators.

Childhood Education, 68(2), 88-92. McCabe, V. (1984). Abstract perceptual information for age level: A risk factor for

maltreatment? Child Development, 55, 267-276. McCall, G. J. (1969). Data quality control in participant observation. In G. J. McCall & J. L.

Simmons (Eds.), Issues in Participant Observation: A Text and Reader (pp. 128-141). New York: Random House.

McCartney, K., Scarr, S., Phillips, D., Grajek, S., & Schwarz, J. C. (1982). Environmental

differences among day care centres and their effects on children's development. In E. F. Zigler & E. W. Gordon (Eds.), Day Care: Scientific and Social Policy Issues (pp. 126-151). Boston: Auburn House Publishing Company.

McCrea, N. L., & Piscitelli, B. (1991). Handbook of High Quality Criteria for early

Childhood Programs (rev. ed.). Brisbane: Queensland University of Technology. Mcgrew, P. L. (1970). Social and spatial density effects on spacing behaviour in

preschool. Journal of Child Psychology and Child Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 11(3), 197-205.

McGuire, J., & Richman, N. (1986). Screening for behaviour problems in nurseries: The

reliability and validity of the Preschool Behaviour Checklist. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 27(1), 7-32.

McGuire, S., Dunn, J., & Plomin, R. (1995). Maternal differential treatment of siblings and

children's behavioral problems: A longitudinal study. Development and Psychopathology, 7(3), 515-528.

McHugh, B. (1997, May 17). Working at childcare. Newcastle Herald, p. 2. McIntyre, J. (1993). Research paradigms and adult education. Studies in Continuing

Education, 15(2), 80-97.

269

McKay, F. (1988). Discipline. In A. Stonehouse (Ed.), Trusting Toddlers (pp. 65-78). Canberra: Australian Early Childhood Association.

McKee, J. P., & Leader, F. B. (1955). The relationship of socio-economic status and

aggression to the competitive behavior of preschool children. Child Development, 26(2), 135-142.

McKeough, A., Yates, T., & Marini, A. (1994). Intentional reasoning: A developmental

study of behaviorally aggressive and normal boys. Development and Psychopathology, 6(2), 285-304.

McLean, V. (1988). Survival: A concern for every teacher?, Proceedings of the 18th

Triennial Conference of the Australian Early Childhood Association (no page numbers). Canberra: Australian early Childhood Association.

Meesters, Y. (1998). Dawn simulation as maintenance treatment in a nine-year-old

patient with seasonal affective disorder. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 37(9), 986-988.

Mellor, B. (1988). The vulcanismic approach to child care, Proceedings of the 18th

Triennial Conference of the Australian Early Childhood Association (no page numbers). Canberra: Australian Early Childhood Association.

Merrett, F., & Taylor, B. (1994). Behaviour problems in the nursery. Educational Review,

46(3), 287-295. Mersch, P. P. A., Middendorp, H. M., Bouhuys, A. L., Beersma, D. G. M., & van den

Hoofdakker, R. H. (1999). Seasonal affective disorder and latitude: a review of the literature. Journal of Affective Disorders, 53(1), 35-48.

Meyer, P. (1997, March). More than a playground: Accessible outdoor learning centers.

Child Care Information Exchange, (114), pp. 57-60. Michael, R. P., & Zumpe, D. (1983). Sexual violence in the United States and the role of

season. American Journal of Psychiatry, 140, 883-886. Milgrom, J. (1994). Mother-infant interaction. Issues for Research (no. 2). Canberra:

Health Research Advisory Committee, Commonwealth Department of Human Services

Miller, K. (1996, September). Developmental issues that affect behavior. Child Care

Information Exchange, (111), pp. 49-55. Miller, S. A. (1995). Parents' attributions for their children’s' behavior. Child Development,

66, 1557-1584. Milligan, K. (1994). Overview of recent research and thinking on child development and

education. In T. Bekkers (Ed.), Proceedings of the 20th Triennial Conference of the Australian Early Childhood Association (no page numbers). Perth: Bekkers and Associates.

Milman, D. H., & Bennett, A. A. (1996). School and seasonal affective disorder. American

Journal of Psychiatry, 153(6), 849-850.

270

Minuchin, P. P., & Shapiro, E. K. (1983). The school as a context for social development. In P. H. Mussen (Ed.), Handbook of Child Psychology (4th ed., Vol. 4, pp. 197-274). New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Mobbs, J. (1994). "Supporting interactions": A new design brief of child care centres. In T.

Bekkers (Ed.), Proceedings of the 20th Triennial Conference of the Australian Early Childhood Association (no page numbers). Perth: Bekkers and Associates.

Mobley, C. E., & Pullis, M. E. (1991). Temperament and behavioral adjustment in

preschool children. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 6(4), 577-586. Moffitt, T. E. (1993). The neuropsychology of conduct disorder. Development and

Psychopathology, 5, 135-151. Moir, A., & Jessel, D. (1991). Brainsex. London: Mandarin. Moore, G. (1994a). The developmentally appropriate design of child care facilities.

Summary text of paper presented at the United Nations conference on the rights of the child: Stronger Families - Stronger Children. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 376 964).

Moore, G. (1994b). Early childhood physical environment observation schedule and

rating scales: preliminary scales for the measurement of the physical environment of child care centres and related environments (2nd ed.). Milwaukee: Wisconsin University, Milwaukee, School of Architecture and Urban Planning.

Moore, G. T. (1986). Effects of the spatial definition of behavior settings on children's

behavior: A quasi-experimental field study. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 6, 205-231.

Moore, G. T. (1987). The physical environment and cognitive development in child-care

centers. In C. S. Weinstein & T. G. David (Eds.), Spaces for Children: The Built Environment and Child Development (pp. 41-71). New York: Plenum Press.

Moore, G. T. (1993). The architecture of child care centres: theory, research, and design

applications. Progressive Architecture, 74(8), 83. Moore, G. T. (1996a, July). How big is too big? How small is too small? Child Care

Information Exchange, (110), pp. 21-24. Moore, G. T. (1996b, September). Addressing center size: A village of interconnected

houses for very large centers. Child Care Information Exchange, (111), pp. 77-80. Moore, G. T. (1996c, November). A question of privacy: Places to pause and child caves.

Child Care Information Exchange, (112), pp. 91-95. Moore, G. T. (1997a, March). The common core of a child care center. Child Care

Information Exchange, (114), pp. 82-86. Moore, G. T. (1997b, May). A place for block play. Child Care Information Exchange,

(115), pp. 73-77. Moore, G. T. (1997c, September). Favorable locations for child care centres. Child Care

Information Exchange, (117), pp. 73-76.

271

Moos, R. H., & Insel, P. M. (1974). Preface. In R. H. Moos & P. M. Insel (Eds.), Issues in Social Ecology (pp. ix-xi). Palo Alto: National Press.

Morehouse, L. E., & Gross, L. (1977). Total fitness in 30 minutes a week. Herts:

Mayflower. Morris, D. (1967). The Naked Ape. New York: McGraw-Hill. Muenzinger, K. F. (1942). Psychology: The Science of Behavior. New York: Harper &

Brothers. Mules, R. (1993, Spring). To plan or not to plan - an issue of quality. Rattler, (27), pp.

20-22. National Childcare Accreditation Council (1993). Putting Children First: Quality

Improvement and Accreditation System Handbook. Sydney: National Childcare Accreditation Council.

Naylor, H. (1985). Design for outdoor play: An observational study. In J. L. Frost & S.

Sunderlin (Eds.), When Children Play (pp. 103-120). Wheaton, MD: Association for Childhood Education International.

Neill, S. R. (1982). Preschool design and child behavior. Journal of Child Psychology and

Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 23(3), 309-318. Neill, S. R., & Denham, E. J. M. (1982). The effects of pre-school building design.

Educational Research, 24(2), 107-111. New South Wales Government (1996). Centre Based and Mobile Child Care Regulation

(No. 2): Clause 9 - Code of Conduct. Sydney: New South Wales Government. Newth, S. J., & Corbett, J. (1993). Behaviour and emotional problems in three-year-old

children of Asian parentage. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 34(3), 333-352.

Nucci, L. P., & Turiel, E. (1978). Social interactions and the development of social

concepts in preschool children. Child Development, 49, 400-407. Nyland, B., & Wood, S. (1994). How building and playground design can support

developmentally appropriate practice. In T. Bekkers (Ed.), Proceedings of the 20th Triennial Conference of the Australian Early Childhood Association (no page numbers). Perth: Bekkers and Associates.

Nystedt, L. (1981). A model for studying the interaction between the objective situation

and a person's construction of the situation. In D. Magnusson (Ed.), Toward a Psychology of Situations: An Interactional Perspective (pp. 375-391). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

O'Brien, L. M. (1997). Turning my world upside down: How I learned to question

Developmentally Appropriate Practice. Childhood Education, 73(2), 100-102. O'Brien, T. (1998). Promoting Positive Behaviour. London: David Fulton. O'Keefe, D. (1995, Summer). The yearly cycle of long day care. Rattler, (36), pp. 19-20.

272

O'Keefe, D. (1997, Autumn). Escalating demands on staff. Rattler, (41), p. 9. O'Leary, K. D., Rosenbaum, A., & Hughes, P. C. (1978). Fluorescent lighting: A purported

source of hyperactive behavior. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 6(3), 285-289.

O'Mara, L., & Johnston, C. (1989). Mothers' attitudes and their children's behaviors in

3-year-olds born prematurely. Journal of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, 10(4), 192-197.

O'Shea, J. A., & Porter, S. F. (1981). Double-blind study of children with hyperkinetic

syndrome treated with multi-allergen extract sublingually. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 14(4), 189-191 & 237.

Ochiltree, G. (1994). Effects of Child Care on Young Children (Early Childhood Study

Paper No. 5), Australian Institute of Family Studies Ochiltree, G., & Edgar, D. (1995). Today's Child Care, Tomorrow's Children (Early

Childhood Study Paper No. 7), Australian Institute of Family Studies Olds, A. R. (1997, September). Mood: The spirit of place. Child Care Information

Exchange, (9), pp. 51-52. Ollendick, D. G., & LaBerteaux, P. J. (1978). Locus of control and teacher ratings of

behavior problems in preschoolers. The Journal of Psychology, 99, 15-18. Olson, S. L. (1992). Development of conduct problems and peer rejection in preschool

children: A social systems analysis. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 20(3), 327-350.

Overton, W. F., & Reese, H. W. (1977). General models for man-environment relations.

In H. McGurk (Ed.), Ecological Factors in Human Development (pp. 11-19). New York: North-Holland Publishing.

Parents who choose preschool (1995, Winter). Rattler, (34), pp. 7-10. Parke, R. D., & Slaby, R. G. (1983). The development of aggression. In P. H. Mussen

(Ed.), Handbook of Child Psychology (4th ed., Vol. 4, pp. 547-641). New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Parker, J. (1995). Understanding Grief & Loss. AECA Resource Book Series (Vol. 2, No.

4). Canberra: Australian Early Childhood Association. Parker, J. (1996). Understanding Separation and Divorce. AECA Resource Book Series

(Vol. 3, No. 1). Canberra: Australian Early Childhood Association. Parsons, H. M. (1974). Why human factors research in environmental design? In D. H.

Carson (Ed.), Man-Environment Interactions: Evaluations and Applications, Part II (pp. 1-14). Stroudsburg PA: Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross.

Patterson, G. R. (1982). Coercive family process. Eugene, OR: Castalia. Pavuluri, M., & Smith, M. (1996). Principles and practice of cognitive behaviour therapy in

working with parents of young children with behaviour disorder. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 21(2), 22-27.

273

Pavuluri, M. N., Luk, S., Clarkson, J., & McGee, R. (1995). A community study of preschool behaviour disorder in New Zealand. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 29, 454-462.

Pellegrini, A. D. (1984). The social cognitive ecology of preschool classrooms: Contextual

relations revisited. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 7, 321-332. Pellegrini, A. D. (1992). Ethological studies of the categorization of children's social

behavior in preschool: A review. Early Education and Development, 3(4), 284-297.

Pellegrini, A. D., & Perlmutter, J. C. (1988). The role of verbal conflicts in pre-school

children's socio-cognitive development. In A. D. Pellegrini (Ed.), Psychological Bases for Early Education (pp. 229-244). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Pellegrini, A. D., & Perlmutter, J. C. (1989). Classroom contextual effects on children's

play. Developmental Psychology, 25(2), 289-296. Pennington, B. F., & Bennetto, L. (1993). Main effects or transactions in the

neuropsychology of conduct disorder? Commentary on 'The neuropsychology of conduct disorder'. Development and Psychopathology, 5, 153-164.

Pepper, S. C. (1961). World hypotheses: A study in evidence. Berkeley: University of

California Press. Perry, J. D., & Simpson, M. E. (1987). Violent crimes in the city: Environmental

determinants. Environment and Behavior, 19, 77-90. Perry, R. (1994). A case for broadening perspectives and re-examining assumptions. In

T. Bekkers (Ed.), Proceedings of the 20th Triennial Conference of the Australian Early Childhood Association (no page numbers). Perth: Bekkers and Associates.

Pervin, L. A. (1981). The relation of situations to behavior. In D. Magnusson (Ed.),

Toward a Psychology of Situations: An Interactional Perspective (pp. 343-360). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Pescara-Kovach, L. A., & Alexander, K. (1994). The link between food ingested and

problem behavior: fact or fallacy? Behavioral Disorders, 19(2), 142-148. Pettit, G. S., Bakshi, A., Dodge, K. A., & Coie, J. D. (1990). The emergence of social

dominance in young boys' play groups: Developmental differences and behavioral correlates. Developmental Psychology, 26(6), 1017-1025.

Phillips, D., McCartney, K., & Scarr, S. (1987). Child care quality and children's social

development. Developmental Psychology, 23(4), 537-543. Piaget, J. (1971). The Child's Concept of Time. (A. J. Pomerans, Trans.) New York:

Ballantine Books. Piaget, J., & Inhelder, B. (1973). Memory and Intelligence. (A. J. Pomerans, Trans.). Pierce, K. A., & Cohen, R. (1995). Aggressors and their victims: toward a contextual

framework for understanding children's aggressor-victim relationships. Developmental Review, 15, 292-310.

274

Piscitelli, B. (1994). Tradition and challenge in the early childhood professions. In T. Bekkers (Ed.), Proceedings of the 20th Triennial Conference of the Australian Early Childhood Association (no page numbers). Perth: Bekkers and Associates.

Podmore, V. N. (1993). Education and Care. A Review of International Studies of the

Outcomes of Early Childhood Experiences. Wellington: New Zealand Council for Educational Research.

Porter, R. (1994, May). Roughhousing as a style of play. Child Care Information

Exchange, (97), pp. 44-45. Powell, J., Martindale, A., & Kulp, S. (1975). An evaluation of time-sample measures of

behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 8(4), 463-469. Prescott, E. (1987). The environment as organizer of intent in child-care settings. In C. S.

Weinstein & T. G. David (Eds.), Spaces for Children: The Built Environment and Child Development (pp. 73-88). New York: Plenum Press.

Prescott, E. (1994, November). The physical environment - a powerful regulator of

experience. Child Care Information Exchange, (100), pp. 9-15. Prescott, E. (1997, September). 3 keys to flexible room arrangement. Child Care

Information Exchange, (9), pp. 48-50. Press, F. (1999). The demise of community-owned long day care centres and the rise of

the mythical consumer. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 24(1), 20-25. Price, R. H., & Bouffard, D. L. (1974). Behavior appropriateness and situational constraint

as dimensions of social behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30(4), 579-586.

Prior, M., Sanson, A., Oberklaid, F., & Northam, E. (1987). Measurement of temperament

in one to three year old children. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 10(1), 121-132.

Proshansky, H. M., & Fabian, A. K. (1987). The development of place identity in the child.

In C. S. Weinstein & T. G. David (Eds.), Spaces for Children: The Built Environment and Child Development (pp. 21-40). New York: Plenum Press.

Puckering, C. (1989). Annotation: Maternal depression. Journal of Child Psychology and

Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 30(6), 807-817. Putallaz, M., & Wasserman, A. (1990). Children's entry behavior. In S. R. Asher & J. D.

Coie (Eds.), Peer Rejection in Childhood (pp. 60-89). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Quay, H. C. (1993). The psychobiology of undersocialized aggressive conduct disorder: A

theoretical perspective. Development and Psychopathology, 5, 165-180. Quilitch, H. R., & Risley, T. R. (1973). The effects of play material on social play. Journal

of Applied Behavior Analysis, 6(4), 573-578. Radke-Yarrow, M., McCann, K., DeMulder, E., Belmont, B., Martinez, P., & Richardson,

D. T. (1995). Attachment in the context of high-risk conditions. Development and Psychopathology, 7(2), 247-265.

275

Ramsey, P. G. (1995). Changing social dynamics in early childhood classrooms. Child Development, 66(3), 764-773.

Rapoport, A. (1977). Human Aspects of Urban Form. New York: Pergamon Press. Rapoport, A. (1982). The Meaning of the Built Environment. Beverly Hills, California:

Sage Publications. Reid, J. B. (1993). Prevention of conduct disorder before and after school entry: Relating

interventions to developmental findings. Development and Psychopathology, 5, 243-262.

Reinert, H. R., & Huang, A. (1987). Children in Conflict. Columbus, OH: Merrill Publishing. Reite, M. (1987). Some additional influences shaping the development of behavior. Child

Development, 58, 596-600. Rende, R. D., & Killen, M. (1992). Social interactional antecedents of conflict in young

children. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 7(4), 551-63. Repp, A. C., Nieminen, G. S., Olinger, E., & Brusca, R. (1988). Direct observation:

Factors affecting the accuracy of observers. Exceptional Children, 55(1), 29-36. Rettig, M. (1998). Environmental influences on the play of young children with disabilities.

Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 33(2), 189-194.

Rettig, M., Kallam, M., & McCarthy-Salm, K. (1993). The effect of social and isolate toys

on the social interactions of preschool-aged children. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 28(5), 252-56.

Richters, J. E., & Cicchetti, D. (1993a). Mark Twain meets DSM-III-R: Conduct disorder,

development, and the concept of harmful dysfunction. Development and Psychopathology, 5, 5-29.

Richters, J. E., & Zahn-Waxler, C. (1988). The infant day care controversy: Current status

and future directions. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 3, 319-336. Ricks, M. H. (1985). The social transmission of parental behavior: Attachment across

generations. In I. Bretherton & E. Waters (Eds.), Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development .50, 211-230.

Rimland, B. (1983). The Feingold diet: An assessment of the reviews by Mattes, by

Kavale and Forness and others. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 16(6), 331-333. Robertson, A. (1982). Day care and children's responsiveness to adults. In E. F. Zigler &

E. W. Gordon (Eds.), Day Care: Scientific and Social Policy Issues (pp. 152-173). Boston: Auburn House Publishing Company.

Robins, L. N. (1991). Conduct Disorder. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and

Allied Disciplines, 32, 193-212. Rodd, J. (1996). Understanding Young Children’s Behaviour: A guide for early childhood

professionals. Sydney: Allen & Unwin.

276

Rodd, J., & Clyde, M. (1991). A Code of Ethics: Who needs it? Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 16(1), 24-34.

Rodd, J., & Holland, A. (1990). Am I doing the right thing? What else could I do?:

Approaches to child management. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 15(4), 28-34.

Rogosa, D., Floden, R., & Willett, J. B. (1984). Assessing the stability of teacher behavior.

Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(6), 1000-1027. Rohe, W., & Patterson, A. H. (1974). The effects of varied levels of resources and density

on behavior in a day care center. In D. H. Carson (Ed.), Man-Environment Interactions: Evaluations and Applications, Part II (pp. 161-171). Stroudsburg PA: Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross.

Rolfe, S. A. (2000, Autumn). The brain research phenomenon. Every Child, 6(1), pp. 8-9. Rolfe, S. A., & Crossley, S. A. (1997). Using the method of ethology to study Australian

preschool children's play and social behaviour. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 22(1), 6-11.

Roopnarine, J. L. (1984). Sex-typed socialization in mixed-age preschool classrooms.

Child Development, 55, 1078-1084. Roper, R., & Hinde, R. A. (1978). Social behavior in a play group: Consistency and

complexity. Child Development, 49, 570-579. Rose, S. A., Feldman, J. F., Rose, S. L., Wallace, I. F., & McCarton, C. (1992). Behavior

problems at 3 and 6 years: Prevalence and continuity in full-terms and preterms. Development and Psychopathology, 4(3), 361-374.

Rosén, L. A., Booth, S. R., Bender, M. E., McGrath, M. L., Sorrell, S., & Drabman, R. S.

(1988). Effects of sugar (sucrose) on children's behavior. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 56(4), 583-589.

Rothbaum, F., Rosen, K. S., Pott, M., & Beatty, M. (1995). Early parent-child relationships

and later problem behavior: A longitudinal study. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 41(2), 133-151.

Rotter, J. B. (1981). The psychological situation in social-learning theory. In D.

Magnusson (Ed.), Toward a Psychology of Situations: An Interactional Perspective (pp. 169-178). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Rotton, J., & Frey, J. (1985). Air pollution, weather, and violent crimes: Concomitant

time-series analysis of archival data. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 1207-1220.

Routh, D. K., Schroeder, C. S., & O'Tuama, L. A. (1974). Development of activity level in

children. Developmental Psychology, 10(2), 163-168. Rutter, M. (1982). Social-emotional consequences of day care for preschool children. In

E. F. Zigler & E. W. Gordon (Eds.), Day Care: Scientific and social policy issues (pp. 3-32). Boston: Auburn House.

277

Rutter, M. (1990). Commentary: Some focus and process considerations regarding effects of parental depression on children. Developmental Psychology, 26(1), 60-67.

Rutter, M., & Garmezy, N. (1983). Developmental Psychopathology. In P. H. Mussen

(Ed.), Handbook of Child Psychology (4th ed., Vol. 4, pp. 775-911). New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Rutter, M., Tizard, J., & Whitmore, R. (1979). Education, health, and behavior. New York:

John Wiley & Sons. Saifer, S. (1993). Practical Solutions to Practically Every Problem: The Early Childhood

Teacher's Manual (Australian ed.). Castle Hill NSW: Pademelon Press. Sameroff, A. J., & Fiese, B. H. (1990). Transactional regulation and early intervention. In

S. J. Meisels & J. P. Shonkoff (Eds.), Handbook of early childhood intervention (pp. 119-149). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Sandoval, J. (1981). Format effects in two teacher rating scales of hyperactivity. Journal

of Abnormal Child Psychology, 9(1), 203-218. Sanson, A., & Di Muccio, C. (1993). The influence of aggressive and neutral cartoons and

toys on the behaviour of preschool children. Australian Psychologist, 28(2), 93-99. Sanson, A. V., Prior, M., Smart, D. F., & Oberklaid, F. (1993). Gender differences in

aggression in childhood: implications for a peaceful world. Australian Psychologist, 28(2), 86-92.

Sanson, A. V., Smart, D. F., Prior, M., & Oberklaid, F. (1993). Precursors of hyperactivity

and aggression. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 32(6), 1207-1216.

Sanson, A. V., Smart, D. F., Prior, M., Oberklaid, F., & Pedlow, R. (1994). The structure

of temperament from age 3 to 7 years: age, sex, and sociodemographic influences. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 40(2), 233-252.

Sarason, I. G., & Sarason, B. R. (1983). Person-situation interactions in human

development: Cognitive factors and coping strategies. In D. Magnusson & V. L. Allen (Eds.), Human Development: An Interactional Perspective (pp. 187-198). New York: Academic Press.

Satter, E. (1999, November 1). Iron: helping your child get enough. Clinical Reference

Systems, p. 798. Scarr, S. (1998). American child care today. American Psychologist, 53(2), 95-108. Schachar, R., Sandberg, S., & Rutter, M. (1986). Agreement between teachers' ratings

and observations of hyperactivity, inattentiveness, and defiance. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 14(2), 331-345.

Schindler, P. J., Moely, B. E., & Frank, A. L. (1987). Time in day care and social

participation of young children. Developmental Psychology, 23(2), 255-261.

278

Schleifer, M., Weiss, G., Cohen, N., Elman, M., Cvejic, H., & Kruger, E. (1975). Hyperactivity in preschoolers and the effects of methylphenidate. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 45(1), 38-50.

Schmitz, S., Fulker, D. W., & Mrazek, D. A. (1995). Problem behavior in early and middle

childhood: An initial behavior genetic analysis. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 36(8), 1443-1458.

Schneider, A. (1986). Children with special needs in day care: A service delivery model.

Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 11(1), 43-48. Schuster, S. O., Murrell, S. A., & Cook, W. A. (1980). Person, setting, and interaction

contributions to nursery school social behavior patterns. Journal of Personality, 48(1), 24-37.

Schwartz, M. S., & Schwartz, C. G. (1969). Problems in participant observation. In G. J.

McCall & J. L. Simmons (Eds.), Issues in Participant Observation: A Text and Reader (pp. 89-104). New York: Random House.

Schwarz, J. C., Strickland, R. G., & Krolick, G. (1974). Infant day care: Behavioral effects

at preschool age. Developmental Psychology, 10(4), 502-506. Sciarillo, W. G., Alexander, G., & Farrell, K. P. (1992). Lead exposure and child behavior.

American Journal of Public Health, 82(10), 1356-1360. Scott, C. (1998). An exploration of the development of young children's understanding of

time concepts. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 23(2), 6-12. Scott-Little, M. C., & Holloway, S. D. (1992). Child care providers' reasoning about

misbehaviors: Relation to classroom control strategies and professional training. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 7(4), 595-606.

Sebastian, P. (1986). Handle with care: A guide to early childhood administration.

Melbourne: AE Press. Sebastian, P. (1988). Toddler environments: Planning to meet their needs. In A.

Stonehouse (Ed.), Trusting Toddlers (pp. 33-44). Canberra: Australian Early Childhood Association.

Sells, S. B. (1963). An interactionist looks at the environment. American Psychologist, 18,

696-702. Shaheen, S. J. (1984). Neuromaturation and behavior development: The case of

childhood lead poisoning. Developmental Psychology, 20(4), 524-550. Shantz, C. U. (1975). The development of social cognition. In E. M. Hetherington (Ed.),

Review of Child Development Research (Vol. 5, pp. 257-305). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Shantz, C. U. (1987). Conflicts between children. Child Development, 58, 283-305. Sharp, D., Hay, D. F., Pawlby, S., Schmucker, G., Allen, H., & Kumar, R. (1995). The

impact of postnatal depression on boys' intellectual development. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 36(8), 1315-1336.

279

Shaw, D. S., Vondra, J. I., Hommerding, K. D., Keenan, K., & Dunn, M. (1994). Chronic family adversity and early child behavior problems: A longitudinal study of low income families. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 35(6), 1109-1122.

Shellshear, I. (1988). Effects of salbutamol. Medical Journal of Australia, 149(1), 56. Shepherd, W., & Eaton, J. (1997, September). Creating environments that intrigue and

delight children and adults. Child Care Information Exchange, (9), pp. 42-47. Sherburne, S., Utley, B., McConnell, S., & Gannon, J. (1988). Decreasing violent or

aggressive theme play among preschool children with behavior disorders. Exceptional Children, 55(2), 166-172.

Sherman, L. W. (1975). An ecological study of glee in small groups of preschool children.

Child Development, 46, 53-61. Sherman, L. W., & Oppenheimer, L. (1989). Affordance in preschool lesson structures

and socially competent task-related behaviors: A Gibsonian ecological re-interpretation, Paper presented at the International Conference on Event Perception and Action Oxford: (ERIC Documents Reproduction Service No. ED 346 948).

Sims, M. (1997). Gender segregation in child care: What is it and what can we do about

it? Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 22(3), 35-39. Sims, M., & Hutchins, T. (1996). The many faces of child care: Roles and functions.

Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 21(1), 21-26. Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and Human Behavior. London: Collier-Macmillan. Slaughter-Defoe, D. T. (1995). Revisiting the concept of socialization. American

Psychologist, 50(4), 276-286. Slee, P., Murray-Harvey, R., & Ward, H. (1996, Summer). Stressed out and growing up.

Every Child, 2(4), pp. 18-19. Slee, P. T., & Cross, D. G. (1990). A comparative study of mother and child

characteristics in families of normal and behaviour problem children. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 15(4), 36-40.

Sluckin, A. M., & Smith, P. K. (1977). Two approaches to the concept of dominance in

preschool children. Child Development, 48, 917-923. Smith, C., & Lloyd, B. (1978). Maternal behavior and perceived sex of infant: revisited.

Child Development, 49, 1263-1265. Smith, P. K., & Connolly, K. J. (1980). The Ecology of Preschool Behaviour. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press. Snodgrass, J., Russell, J. A., & Ward, L. M. (1988). Planning, mood and place-liking.

Journal of Environmental Psychology, 8, 209-222.

280

Snyder, J., Edwards, P., McGraw, K., Kilgore, K., & Holton, A. (1994). Escalation and reinforcement in mother-child conflict: Social processes associated with the development of physical aggression. Development and Psychopathology, 6, 305-321.

Sommer, R. (1969). Personal Space: The Behavioral Basis of Design. New Jersey:

Prentice-Hall. Sonuga-Barke, E. J. S., Lamparelli, M., Stevenson, J., Thompson, M., & Henry, A.

(1994). Behaviour problems and pre-school intellectual attainment: the associations of hyperactivity and conduct problems. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 35(5), 949-960.

Sorensen, G. (1997, Autumn). Dealing with conflicts in the workplace. Rattler, (41), pp.

5-6. Soto, L. D., Fernandez, C., & Cantieri, P. (1990). Towards an ecological approach of

observing in early childhood settings. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 15(2), 19-24.

Spivack, G., Marcus, J., & Swift, M. (1986). Early classroom behaviors and later

misconduct. Developmental Psychology, 22(1), 124-131. Sroufe, L. A. (1988). A developmental perspective on day care. Early Childhood

Research Quarterly, 3, 283-291. Stake, R. E. (1995). The Art of Case Study. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage. Stallard, P. (1993). The behaviour of 3-year-old children: Prevalence and parental

perception of problem behaviour: A research note. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 34(3), 413-421.

Stebbins, R. A. (1971). The meaning of disorderly behavior: Teacher definitions of a

classroom situation. Sociology of Education, 44(2), 217-236. Stebbins, R. A. (1973). Physical context influences on behavior: The case of classroom

disorderliness. Environment and Behavior, 5(3), 291-314. Stein, A. H. (1996). The self-organizing psyche: Nonlinear and neurobiological

contributions to psychoanalysis. In W. Sulis & A. Combs (Eds.), Nonlinear dynamics in human behavior (Vol. 1, pp. 256-275). Singapore: World Scientific Publishing.

Stephen, H. (1993). Conflict Resolution with Young Children. AECA Resource Book

Series, No. 2. Canberra: Australian Early Childhood Association. Stephens, K. (1996a, May). YOU can make circle time developmentally appropriate.

Child Care Information Exchange, (109), pp. 40-43. Stephens, K. (1996b, September). Responding professionally and compassionately to

challenging behavior. Child Care Information Exchange, (111), pp. 45-48. Stern, G. G. (1964). B=f(P,E). Journal of Personality Assessment, 28(2), 161-168.

281

Sternberg, K. J., Lamb, M. E., Hwang, C., Broberg, A., Ketterlinus, R. D., & Bookstein, F. L. (1991). Does out-of-home care affect compliance in preschoolers? International Journal of Behavioral Development, 14(1), 45-65.

Stocker, C. M. (1995). Differences in mothers' and fathers' relationships with siblings:

Links with Children's behavior problems. Development and Psychopathology, 7, 499-513.

Stokols, D. (1981). Group x place transactions: Some neglected issues in psychological

research on settings. In D. Magnusson (Ed.), Toward a Psychology of Situations: An Interactional Perspective (pp. 393-415). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Stokols, D. (1987). Conceptual strategies of environmental psychology. In D. Stokols & I.

Altman (Eds.), Handbook of Environmental Psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 41-70). New York: John Wiley and Sons.

Stokols, D. (1990). Instrumental and spiritual views of people-environment relations.

American Psychologist, 45(5), 641-646. Stonehouse, A. (1994). Is appropriate practice the same whatever the setting? In A.

Stonehouse (Ed.), Not Just Nice Ladies: A Book of Readings on Early Childhood Care and Education (pp. 74-85). Castle Hill, NSW: Pademelon Press.

Stonehouse, A., & Creaser, B. (1991). A Code of Ethics for the Australian early childhood

profession: background and overview. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 16(1), 7-10.

Stormont-Spurgin, M., & Zentall, S. (1995). Contributing factors in the manifestation of

aggression in preschoolers with hyperactivity. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 36(3), 491-509.

Stränger, J., & Hommel, B. (1995). The perception of action and movement. In W. Prinz &

B. Bridgeman (Eds.), Handbook of Perception and Action (Vol. 1, pp. 397-441). New York: Academic Press.

Strassberg, Z., Dodge, K. A., Pettit, G. S., & Bates, J. E. (1994). Spanking in the home

and children's subsequent aggression towards kindergarten peers. Developmental Psychopathology, 6(3), 445-462.

Stratton, P., & Hayes, N. (1988). A Student's Dictionary of Psychology. London: Edward

Arnold. Strauss, A., Schatzman, L., Bucher, R., Ehrlich, D., & Sabshin, M. (1969). Field Tactics.

In G. J. McCall & J. L. Simmons (Eds.), Issues in Participant Observation: A Text and Reader (pp. 70-72). New York: Random House.

Strayer, F., & Strayer, J. (1976). An ethological analysis of social agonism and

dominance relations among preschool children. Child Development, 46, 980-989. Streissguth, A. N., Martin, D. C., Barr, H. M., Sandman, B. M., Kirchner, G. L., & Darby,

B. L. (1984). Intrauterine alcohol and nicotine exposure: Attention and reaction time in 4-year-old children. Developmental Psychology, 20(4), 533-541.

282

Styczynski, L. E., & Langlois, J. H. (1977). The effects of familiarity on behavioral stereotypes associated with physical attractiveness in young children. Child Development, 48, 1137-1141.

Sullivan, L. (1997). Child care - feminism and middle-class culture. In K. Healey (Ed.),

Child Care (pp. 25-26). Sydney: The Spinney Press. Sundstrom, E., Town, J. P., Rice, R. W., Osborn, D. P., & Brill, M. (1994). Office noise,

satisfaction and performance. Environment and Behavior, 26(2), 195-222. Susa, A. M., & Benedict, J. O. (1994). The effects of playground design on pretend play

and divergent thinking. Environment and Behavior, 26(4), 560-579. Susman, E. J. (1993). Psychological, contextual, and psychobiological interactions: a

developmental perspective on conduct disorders. Development and Psychopathology, 5, 181-189.

Swedo, S. E., Allen, A. J., Glod, C. A., Clarke, C. H., Teicher, M. H., Richter, D., Hoffman,

C., Hamburger, S. D., Dow, S., Brown, C., & Rosenthal, N. E. (1997). A controlled trial of light therapy for the treatment of pediatric seasonal affective disorder. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 36(6), 816-821.

Sylva, K., Roy, C., & Painter, M. (1980). Childwatching at Playgroup and Nursery School.

London: Grant McIntyre. Talay-Ongan, A. (2000). Neuroscience and early childhood: A necessary partnership.

Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 25(2), 28-33. Tannock, R. (1998). Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder: Advances in cognitive,

neurobiological, and genetic research. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 39(1), 65-99.

Taylor, J. C., & Romanczyk, R. G. (1994). Generating hypotheses about the function of

student problem behavior by observing teacher behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27(2), 251-265.

Taylor, M. (1997). The role of creative control and culture in children's fantasy/reality

judgements. Child Development, 68(6), 1015-1017. Thompson, D. J. (1996). The tape recorder as a mediating factor in research. Australian

Educational Researcher, 23(3), 1-12. Thompson, R. A. (1988). The effects of infant day care through the prism of attachment

theory: A critical appraisal. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 3, 273-282. Thomson, G. O. B., Raab, G. M., Hepburn, W. S., Hunter, R., Fulton, M., & Laxen, D. P.

H. (1989). Blood-lead levels and children's behaviour - results from the Edinburgh Lead Study. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 30(4), 515-528.

Thornburg, K. R., Pearl, P., Crompton, D., & Ispa, J. M. (1990). Development of

kindergarten children based on child care arrangements. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 5, 27-42.

283

Tieger, T. (1980). On the biological basis of sex differences in aggression. Child Development, 51, 943-963.

Tinbergen, N. (1968). On war and peace in animals and man. Science, 160, 1411-1418. Tisak, M. S., Nucci, L. P., & Jankowski, A. M. (1996). Preschool children's social

interactions involving moral and prudential transgressions: An observational study. Early Education and Development, 7(2), 137-148.

Touchette, P. E., MacDonald, R. F., & Langer, S. N. (1985). A scatter plot for identifying

stimulus control of problem behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 18, 343-351.

Trancik, A. M., & Evans, G. W. (1995). Spaces fit for children: Competency in the design

of daycare center environments. Children's Environments, 12(3), 311-319. Tremblay, R. E., Masse, B., Perron, D., Leblanc, M., Schwartzman, A. E., & Ledingham,

J. E. (1992). Early disruptive behavior, poor school achievement, delinquent behavior, and delinquent personality: Longitudinal analyses. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 60(1), 64-72.

Turner, P. J. (1991). Relations between attachment, gender, and behavior with peers in

preschool. Child Development, 62(6), 1475-1488. Vasta, R. (1992). Preface. In R. Vasta (Ed.), Six Theories of Child Development (pp. ix-x).

London: Jessica Kingsley. Vaughn, B. E., & Langlois, J. H. (1983). Physical attractiveness as a correlate of peer

status and social competence in preschool children. Developmental Psychology, 19(4), 561-567.

Vaughn, B. E., & Waters, E. (1981). Attention structure, sociometric status, and

dominance: interrelations, behavioral correlates, and relationships to social competence. Developmental Psychology, 17, 275-288.

Vidich, A. J. (1969). Participant observation and the collection and interpretation of data.

In G. J. McCall & J. L. Simmons (Eds.), Issues in Participant Observation: A Text and Reader (pp. 78-87). New York: Random House.

Viemerö, V. (1992). Changes in patterns of aggressiveness among Finnish girls over a

decade. In K. Björkqvist & P. Niemelä (Eds.), Of Mice and Women: Aspects of Female Aggression (pp. 99-106). San Diego: Academic Press.

Vlietstra, A. G. (1981). Full- versus half-day preschool attendance: Effects in young

children as assessed by teacher ratings and behavioral observations. Child Development, 52, 603-610.

Wahler, R. G. (1990). Who is driving the interactions? A commentary on "Child and

parent effects in boys' conduct disorder". Developmental Psychology, 26(5), 702-704.

Waldman, I. D. (1996). Aggressive boy's hostile perceptual and response biases: The

role of attention and impulsivity. Child Development, 67(3), 1015-1033.

284

Walling, L. S. (1977). Planning an environment - a case study. In S. Kritchevsky, E. Prescott, & L. Wallings (Eds.), Planning Environments for Young Children: Physical Space (2nd ed., pp. 44-55). Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children.

Walsh, P. (1989, Summer). Providing a quality environment in the child care centre.

Rattler, (12), pp. 18-22. Walsh, P. (1997, Winter). Are we providing children with the right physical environments?

Rattler, (42), pp. 14-15. Wangmann, J. (1988, Winter). The floor and the ceiling: Regulations and standards for

children's services. Rattler, (6), pp. 4-5. Warren, K. (1996, Winter). Preschool children and the superheroes: Some gender

implications. Rattler, (38), pp. 14-15. Waters, E., Posada, G., Crowell, J., & Lay, K. (1993). Is attachment theory ready to

contribute to our understanding of disruptive behavior problems? Development and Psychopathology, 5, 215-224.

Watkins, K. P., & Durant, L. (1992). Complete Early Childhood Behavior Management

Guide. West Nyack, NY: The Centre for Applied Research in Education. Watts, B. H. (1987). Changing families - changing children's services. Where are the

children going? Are kindergarten teachers ready to go too? Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 12(3), 4-12.

Weatherburn, D., & Lind, B. (1998). Poverty, parenting, peers and crime-prone

neighbourhoods. Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology. Weinstein, C. S., & David, T. G. (1987). Preface. In C. S. Weinstein & T. G. David (Eds.),

Spaces for Children: The Built Environment and Child Development (pp. xiii-xv). New York: Plenum Press.

Wellisch, M. (1996, Autumn). Staff appraisals the painless way. Rattler, (37), pp. 21-23. Wener, R. (1989). Advances in evaluation of the built environment. In E. H. Zube & G. T.

Moore (Eds.), Advances in environment, behaviour, and design (Vol. 2, pp. 287-313). New York: Plenum Press.

Werner, S. (1996, May). Need a barometer for assessing the climate of your centre?

Child Care Information Exchange, (109), pp. 29-33. Wicker, A. W. (1987). Behavior settings reconsidered: Temporal stages, resources,

internal dynamics, context. In D. Stokols & I. Altman (Eds.), Handbook of Environmental Psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 613-653). New York: John Wiley and Sons.

Wilder, S. (1996, Winter). Befriending power ranger number three... Rattler, (38), pp.

12-13. Willems, E. P. (1974). Behavioral technology and behavioral ecology. Journal of Applied

Behavioral Analysis, 7(1), 151-165.

285

Willems, E. P. (1977). Relations of models to methods in behavioral ecology. In H. McGurk (Ed.), Ecological Factors in Human Development (pp. 21-35). New York: North-Holland Publishing.

Wittmer, D. S., & Honig, A. S. (1994). Encouraging positive social development in young

children. Young Children, 49(5), 4-12. Wohlwill, J. (1983). Physical and social environment as factors in development. In D.

Magnusson & V. L. Allen (Eds.), Human Development: An Interactional Perspective (pp. 111-129). New York: Academic Press.

Wohlwill, J. F., & Heft, H. (1977). Environments fit for the developing child. In H. McGurk

(Ed.), Ecological Factors in Human Development (pp. 125-137). New York: North-Holland Publishing.

Wohlwill, J. F., & Heft, H. (1987). The physical environment and the development of the

child. In D. Stokols & I. Altman (Eds.), Handbook of Environmental Psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 281-328). New York: John Wiley and Sons.

Wolfe, M., & Rivlin, L. G. (1987). The institutions in children's lives. In C. S. Weinstein &

T. G. David (Eds.), Spaces for Children: The Built Environment and Child Development (pp. 89-114). New York: Plenum Press.

Wolraich, M. (1998). Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Professional Care of Mother

and Child, 8(2), 35-37. Woolley, J. D. (1997). Thinking about fantasy: Are children fundamentally different

thinkers and believers from adults? Child Development, 68(6), 991-1011. Wright, H. F. (1967). Recording and Analyzing Child Behavior. New York: Harper & Row. Wright, H. F., Barker, R. G., Nall, J., & Schoggen, P. (1951). Toward a psychological

ecology of the classroom. Journal of Educational Research, 45, 187-200. Wright, R. O., Bhole, G., Pilipovic, L., Amarasiriwardena, C., Hu, H., & Maher, T. (2000).

Effects of iron deficiency and lead poisoning on memory and dopamine concentration. Journal of Toxicology: Clinical Toxicology, 38(5), 530.

Wyver, S. R., & Spence, S. H. (1995). Cognitive and social play of Australian

preschoolers. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 20(2), 42-46. Yin, R. K. (1994). Case Study Research (2nd ed.). Applied Social Research methods

Series. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage. Youcha, V., & Wood, K. (1997, March). Enhancing the environment for ALL children.

Child Care Information Exchange, (114), pp. 45-49. Zahn-Waxler, C. (1993). Warriors and worriers: Gender and psychopathology.

Development and Psychopathology, 5, 79-89. Zahn-Waxler, C., Cole, P. M., Welsh, J. D., & Fox, N. A. (1995). Psychophysiological

correlates of empathy and prosocial behaviors in preschool children with behavior problems. Development and Psychopathology, 7, 27-48.

286

Zahn-Waxler, C., Iannotti, R. J., Cummings, E. M., & Denham, S. (1990). Antecedents of problem behaviors in children of depressed mothers. Development and Psychopathology, 2(3), 271-291.

Zajonc, R. B., Markus, H., & Markus, G. B. (1979). The birth order puzzle. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 37(8), 1325-1341. Zeece, P. D., & Crase, S. J. (1982). Effects of verbal warning on compliant and transition

behavior of preschool children. Journal of Psychology, 112, 269-274. Zeegers, S. K., Readdick, C. A., & Hansen-Gandy, S. (1994). Daycare children's

establishment of territory to experience privacy. Children's Environments, 11(4), 265-271.

Zigler, E. F., & Turner, P. (1982). Parents and day care workers: a failed partnership? In

E. F. Zigler & E. W. Gordon (Eds.), Day Care: Scientific and social policy issues (pp. 174-182). Boston: Auburn House.

Zoccolillo, M. (1993). Gender and the development of conduct disorder. Development

and Psychopathology, 5, 65-78.